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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds the crucial race semantics — the reversal only works before the other app consumes the context. The 'only when your person asks' permission requirement is real context beyond the annotation set. It does not say what a failed too-late attempt returns, which is the main remaining gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler: action first, then timing/authorization constraint, then the argument. Everything an agent needs to act is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the timing window and authorization rule that annotations cannot express. Only the failure/too-late behavior is left implicit.

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?

Coverage is 100% and the single param's schema description is identical ('The id from send_context'), so the description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Take back context') and ties it to the sibling that created the context, send_context, so the pairing is clear. It does not name pick_up_context outright, only gesturing at 'their other app picks it up', so the boundary with the other context-handling sibling is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Only when your person asks' is an explicit authorization gate, and 'before their other app picks it up' gives a clear timing condition for when the call is valid. It stops short of saying what to do if the pickup already happened or naming an alternative tool.

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