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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that it does NOT capture live from source, that a measured verdict is REFUSED when no tracked metric has a post snapshot, and what force:true or verdict:'abandoned' do instead. It also states the side effect (status='closed'). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: trigger first, then behavior, then failure modes and remedies. The refusal/retry path repeats itself somewhat ('record snapshots then retry' appears twice conceptually), costing a little crispness, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers trigger, prerequisites, refusal behavior, overrides, and the resulting state change. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or route to the prerequisite tool.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents force, notes, verdict and interventionId. The description still adds selection meaning by explaining when force is required and contrasting measured verdicts against 'abandoned', which helps an agent choose values rather than just read types.

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 (complete/close) plus resource (an applied intervention) and enumerates exactly what it computes: attaches the latest recorded post-fix snapshot, computes deltas vs baseline, flags expected-delta outcomes, and sets verdict plus status='closed'. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only get_interventions sibling.

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?

Opens with an explicit TRIGGER ('call WITHOUT asking once an applied intervention's check date has passed') and routes the agent to get_interventions(dueForCheckIn: true) for candidate discovery. It also names the prerequisites (record_metric_snapshot) and the escape hatches (force:true, verdict:'abandoned'), covering when-not and alternatives.

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