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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context: drafts are private, publishing shares at a writable scope, drafts are purged when identity ends, and supersedes creates a new version. It does not mention the idempotency_key behavior or what exactly the destructive hint covers, which would be the remaining useful disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and sharing model before the action breakdown, and every sentence carries information. It is dense but justified for an 18-parameter multi-action tool, with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the lifecycle model and all five actions. Gaps are minor: idempotency_key, reason, and decay_half_life_days are undocumented in prose, though the schema describes them.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already tags each parameter with the actions it applies to, so the description's action-to-argument mapping is largely a readable restatement. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds grouping clarity but no new semantic detail.

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 the resource (lessons, dead ends, workflows, skills) and the operation family (record and share) plus the five discrete actions. It is specific enough to separate this from siblings like coordination_write or registry_write, though it never explicitly names those siblings to draw the boundary.

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?

Each action line states its arguments and effect (draft = private, publish = shares at a writable scope, distill = batch publish, rate = 1-5 for a purpose, validate = validated/refuted), which effectively encodes when to pick each action. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance.

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