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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: every version is kept, restore_version reverts, omitted fields stay unchanged (confirming the idempotent merge semantics), and it returns the plan plus a diff. No permissions/auth context, but the mutation profile is well covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and versioning model, and every clause carries usable information. The middle section is a dense run-on list of field meanings that takes effort to parse but wastes little.

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 9-parameter tool with a nested object, it covers what changes, merge semantics, concurrency safety, and the return value ('the plan and what changed'), which stands in for the missing output schema. Auth/permission requirements are the notable omission.

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 only 56%, yet the description explains the meaning of nearly every parameter – required (places/languages/terms with 'words someone's work must show'), preferred ('skills that move people up'), seeds ('owner/repo whose people each round reads'), location_unknown default, approve/reject, version, and restore_version. It compensates for the gaps, e.g. giving `preferred` semantics the schema omits entirely.

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+resource ('Change what a role's rounds keep to and look for, as a new version of its plan') and immediately clarifies the versioning model. An agent can distinguish it from get_search_plan, though differentiation from the sibling set_role_criteria is left implicit.

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?

Gives concrete context: pass version so concurrent changes aren't overwritten, use approve/reject with ids from get_search_plan, and a constraint ('Only change required constraints when the user asks'). No explicit when-not-to-use beyond that, so not a 5.

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