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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the practical effect of each choice: privacy, follow-up by AETHER, or discoverability by others. It omits reversibility, required authorization (implied only by the peer_token parameter), and whether the peer is notified or affected.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key choice semantics front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a mutation-style tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, three required parameters with zero schema coverage, and no sibling differentiation. For a consent-setting operation with real social consequences, the description explains only the consent values and leaves auth, reversibility, and side effects unexplained.

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 0% across three parameters. The description glosses the three consent enum values, adding meaning the bare enum lacks, but peer_id and peer_token remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

"Choose consent" largely restates the tool name (set_contact_consent), so the core purpose is only implied. The parenthetical glosses for none/reconnect/introduce do add real meaning, but nothing distinguishes this from siblings like aether_introduce or aether_relationship_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the alternatives, nor any prerequisite note despite peer_id and peer_token being required. The enum glosses hint at consequences, which is a weak form of guidance, but the agent is left to infer the triggering context.

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