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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: score_parts requires the trader's TypeSafe key, accept_parts skips Jev scoring, choose_coverage depends on measurable gates, and the tool only executes the chosen move without deciding gates. It omits failure modes and reversibility details.

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?

One dense sentence followed by a semicolon-delimited guidance clause. It is front-loaded with the action and maps each enum option, though the jargon is heavy and the structure is compressed.

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?

Covers the trigger, all move options, the conditional choice parameter, consent requirements, and the tool's limited role in the state machine. For a no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations, this is nearly sufficient, though it omits post-move result or failure behavior.

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%, but the schema descriptions are minimal. The description supplies meaning for each move enum value, including the conditional choice for choose_coverage, materially improving correct parameter selection.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: moving the trader's rule through the studio's state machine. The trigger 'when forge is refused' and enumeration of the four moves distinguish it from the sibling forge tool.

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?

Explicitly conditions use on forge being refused and instructs the agent to ask the trader before accepting or choosing on their behalf. It also maps each move option, giving clear routing guidance.

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