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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals several key behaviors: permission requirements, the preview/write split, the confirm guard, unknown names never creating tools, and new entries possibly remaining queued. It stops short of explicitly stating that 'atomically replace' destroys the old stack, though the phrase strongly implies it.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, write requirements, and moderation caveat. The tool name and primary operation are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: permission, preview/write, confirm guard, and post-write queue behavior. It could add what the preview returns or any failure semantics, but those are moderate gaps.

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 only 33% (only agent_name has a description), so the description must compensate. It clarifies confirm's role in writes and hints at items' behavior (unmatched names, moderation queue). However, it does not explain the semantics of role, source, or version fields within items, leaving meaningful gaps.

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: 'Preview or atomically replace the token owner's aicoolies stack.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tools or submit_run, none of which manage an aicoolies stack. The scope ('token owner') and operation type ('atomically replace') are unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage context: preview vs. write (confirm=true), permission requirement (stack:write), and the behavior for unknown names. It does not name alternative tools, but none of the sibling tools are plausible substitutes for this stack-sync operation, so the omission is minor.

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