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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing that decisions are audited, workspace-private, and persist into later maps, plus what 'reset' actually restores. It omits permission requirements and failure behavior for invalid map_id/match_id pairs.

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 sentences, zero filler: the action and its enum semantics come first, the guardrail second, and the side effects last. The parenthetical glosses are the densest part but each removes ambiguity rather than adding bulk.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what each decision means, the consent requirement, and the persistence/audit consequences. Missing only return-value shape and error/validation behavior, which is a modest gap given the rich semantics already provided.

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?

At 60% schema coverage, the description carries real weight by defining the three decision enum values semantically (same person / not same person / back to evidence-only), which the schema's bare enum does not. It does not clarify map_id or note, both of which also lack schema 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?

The description names a specific verb (record the user's decision) and a precisely scoped resource (a possible GitHub-account/LinkedIn-profile match inside a company map), and it spells out the three decision values. It stops short of naming a sibling such as get_company_map or decide to route the agent, so it is clear rather than fully differentiating.

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 on the user's word, never your own guess' is a concrete when-to-use constraint that excludes the main failure mode (agent inferring a decision). It gives no positive workflow guidance, e.g. that evidence should be reviewed via get_person_evidence or the map's matches section first, and names no alternatives.

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