Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it stages membership ends for member confirmation, writes nothing until accepted, and is idempotent across repeated sweeps. It also notes that investor relationships still naming the old firm are included, which is useful operational context for a mutation-adjacent sweep.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only two high-value constraints: idempotent staging and no writes until accepted. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the key behavioral risks of a staging sweep and relies appropriately on the output schema and annotations for return semantics and safety profile. Its main gap is the absence of any guidance on the required companyId scope and optional meta fields, though the schema carries that information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention the required companyId parameter or the meta evidence/confidence fields at all. With schema coverage at 50% and nested parameters, the description should clarify these inputs but instead leaves parameter meaning entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific sweep operation: finding partners whose organization or title no longer matches their listed firm and staging the end of that membership. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast against siblings such as fundraising_stage_network_membership or fundraising_record_sweep.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used for periodic sweeps and that each move is staged once regardless of how often the sweep runs, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus related staging or membership tools, nor does it name exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.