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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: spawn scope must be a SUBSET of the caller's rights, first credentials are returned once, bootstrap keys expire (90 days without a child expiry, 365 max) and die with the child, and idempotency keys are kept 24 hours. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before a write, though return shapes and failure modes are not covered.

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 leading sentence is well front-loaded, but the rest is a single dense paragraph of semicolon-clause fragments that is hard to scan as one unit. Given that the schema already documents every parameter at 100% coverage, much of the per-action parameter restatement is redundant rather than earning its place.

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?

All five actions are covered with their key constraints, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. For a 19-parameter, 5-action tool this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing and failure/permission edge cases are absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely mirrors the schema (e.g. the load_memory_and_skills defaults for spawn/update/org_context) and mostly adds compact cross-action grouping rather than new meaning. The one added nuance is the '[] loads nothing' / 'absent means default' distinction, which the schema already states.

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 opening sentence names four concrete actions (create a child agent, set what it loads, publish your capability card, start a fresh session) with distinct verbs, and each action line restates its own effect. The fifth action, org_context, is only described at the very end and is absent from the headline summary, so the enumeration is slightly incomplete. Nothing compares it to siblings like registry_write, but the resource is unmistakable.

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?

Per-action labels ('spawn:', 'set_card:', 'update:', 'org_context:') implicitly tell the agent which case each action covers, and one real exclusion is stated ('never your own: an identity does not widen what it loads'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternative tools for overlapping jobs. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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