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

Annotations declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world write with no destructive hint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds important behavioral context: reports enter a review queue, count toward success rate only after approval, and must not contain personal data. It stops short of describing rate limits or exact return behavior, but the annotations carry much of the burden.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the core purpose, then layer on the review-queue and no-personal-data constraints. No redundant or filler text.

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?

For a 9-parameter, non-readOnly tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the review pipeline, success-rate impact, and data-privacy constraints. It omits how the report is returned or whether retries are handled, but the core operational context an agent needs is present.

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 78%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only names the outcome values and touches on what_changed and lesson but does not add format or syntax guidance for parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: recording the outcome of running a playbook, with the three outcome values named. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling submission tools like submit_playbook or get_lessons, which serve different purposes.

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 makes clear this is for reporting a playbook run outcome, which implicitly distinguishes it from retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to report vs. not report, nor does it name alternatives or competing tools.

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