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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: wildcard tool entries extend to future tools, host confirmation settings are not overridden, and secret entry is handled elsewhere. That is real added context, though it says nothing about revocability or blast radius of a destructive grant.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and caveats follow. Slightly clipped to the point of being telegraphic, but efficient.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits far too much: what a grant authorizes, duration semantics, what allow_high_impact changes, and how to revoke. The added caveats are helpful but insufficient.

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% on 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails. Only an indirect hint at the tools array (wildcards) is present; duration options, provider enum, approval_id vs connection_id, and especially allow_high_impact are never explained.

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: 'Create a BEON PASS standing authorization.' An agent can tell this creates a grant object, though 'standing authorization' is domain jargon and the description does not distinguish it from the sibling beon_update_autopilot_grant.

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?

Two boundary statements ('Does not override the host's own confirmation settings', 'Private secret entry is always separate') clarify scope limits, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the update sibling, and no prerequisites for the approval_id/connection_id inputs.

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