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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it explicitly disclaims a deployment retry or provider write, and it discloses the failure mode that 'incomplete, absent, duplicate or still-building evidence keeps the app locked'. It does not say what 'reconcile' mutates locally or whether the operation can be reversed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, followed by the write-scope exclusion and the failure condition. No filler; every clause carries 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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent, write scope, and lock outcome but omits what the tool actually changes, what it returns, and whether the caller needs elevated permissions. Adequate minimum but with clear gaps.

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% and the description never mentions app_id or release_id, so neither parameter gains any meaning from the prose. With two required, entirely undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Reconcile') against a specific resource ('an uncertain original deployment') and qualifies the inputs used ('fresh exact provider source and signed attempt evidence'). It is distinguishable from siblings like beon_verify_app_release or beon_prepare_app_release, though the term 'reconcile' remains domain jargon without a plain-language gloss.

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 'No deployment retry or provider write' clause implicitly tells the agent when this tool is NOT the right call and steers it away from retry/write siblings. However, it never states the positive trigger condition (e.g., 'use after an interrupted deploy when the lock state is uncertain') nor names a specific alternative tool.

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