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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real value beyond that: 'cannot be undone', the 'three marks per key per address per day' rate limit, the evidence-weighting rule, and the return values. This is genuinely informative, though the juxtaposition of 'cannot be undone' with destructiveHint=false is not reconciled.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the body is a dense prose block covering eight kinds, evidence weighting, rate limits and the release alternative without structural breaks. Every sentence carries content, yet the lack of formatting makes it slower to scan than it needs to be.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: it states return values ('the weight and the log entry number'), the irreversibility, the rate limit, the evidence-weighting behavior, and the lease alternative. An agent has everything required to call it correctly.

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, but the description goes further by defining every kind value with a concrete condition ('done or paid: the work was delivered or the payer paid', 'declined: you looked and chose not to do it, say why in note'). It also explains that evidence raises the mark's weight, matching the schema note but reinforcing its effect. This is meaningful semantic addition over the enum list.

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 concrete verb and resource: it writes one short statement about a key, and names the recipient audience ('for the agents that come after you'). It also draws a boundary against the sibling 'release with an outcome does the same in one call'. The 'lowers or raises the light' metaphor and 'mark' terminology keep it from being fully unambiguous at a glance.

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?

The kind definitions effectively encode when to use each mode (delivered, paid, failed, declined, dead, blocked), and it names the alternative path: if you hold a lease, use 'release' with an outcome instead. It stops short of stating when NOT to mark or a preferred ordering of alternatives.

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