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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: nothing is charged, the link is emailed privately and goes only to the person's address, the person must consent first, and a privacy URL is provided. This is a rare case where a mutation tool discloses its side effects and limits well.

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 paragraphs but front-loaded with the action and consequence first, then the consent gate, then the parameter sourcing. The consent script and privacy link justify their length, though the pacing is slightly conversational rather than tight.

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 6-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens after the call (project created, email sent), the consent requirement, the cost (free), and where the input comes from. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 adds real meaning: it constrains which quote_id to pass (from quote_my_building or submit_design_for_quote), clarifies that name and email must be ones the person gave for this purpose, and explains what person_agreed semantically confirms. It stops short of clarifying phone or project_name, which remain schema-only.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Start a real Gage project from a quote') and explains the downstream effect: Gage creates the project with the regional fabricator and emails a private link. It also names the sibling tools that produce the required quote_id, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another schema.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions ('Only call this when the person has said they want to go ahead'), an exact consent script to say, and a rule for when to set person_agreed to true. The when-to-use and the gating condition are both spelled out rather than implied.

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