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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-readOnly; the description reinforces that this mutates the request by answering it, and warns that expected_version guards against a stale view ('If it has changed since, nothing is changed'). It implies but does not explicitly state irreversibility or who is notified of the action.

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?

Purpose and the person's-words rule are front-loaded, but the sentence is long, uses all-caps emphasis, and mixes several distinct constraints (action list, accept wording, ordering, versioning) without structure, which makes it harder to scan than necessary.

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 mutation's confirmation requirement and version conflict behavior, which are the key risks for a destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema. It does not describe what happens after a successful answer (notifications, history effect) beyond stating the person's words are kept for both sides to see.

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 schema documents all eight parameters. The description adds value by tying words to the person's own speech, deadlines to time_zone, and explaining expected_version semantics (from my_requests, and that a mismatch yields what changed), going beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 (answer) and resource (request) and enumerates the full action space: accept, decline, question, answer, propose_terms, accept_terms, reject_terms. It distinguishes from sibling update_request by framing this as a response to the other side.

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?

Gives explicit when ('Only after your person has told you what to say, with their words') and the rule for a valid accept ('needs words that say what they're agreeing to ... not just "ok"'). It also clarifies the ordering constraint that the old terms stand until a proposed change is accepted.

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