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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower and the description adds real context: a 15-minute TTL with heartbeat extension, conflict outcomes (COMMUTE/CONFLICT/UNKNOWN), and hook-triggered side effects on definition and call sites. What it omits is what registering actually does to other agents' intents (blocking, visibility) and what success returns.

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 core action, then the operation grammar, then the hook behavior — a sensible order with minimal filler. The hook sentence is long and clause-stacked, but each clause carries distinct information (which ops, scope, verification, reporting), so little is wasted.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond the safety hints, the description covers TTL, conflict semantics, retry idempotency, and the optional hook workflow. It stops short of stating the return payload or what the caller should do after a CONFLICT/UNKNOWN result, which is the remaining actionable gap.

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 meaning the schema does not: it enumerates all eight typed operations with their field shapes (rename/symbol/new_name, add_param/name/type/default, extract, move, delete, add, modify), whereas the schema only shows one example. It also explains ref (issue/PR link), TTL, and idempotency-driven retry behavior in prose.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Register an in-flight change', then clarifies the mechanism (typed operations, conflict prediction, TTL). An agent can tell this is about declaring intent, not querying it. It never names or contrasts with siblings like claim, defer_intent, or pending_reconciliations, so it misses the top-tier sibling-differentiation bar.

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?

'PREFER typed operations' and the TTL/heartbeat note imply usage, and the hook paragraph states a concrete condition ('With the native hook installed'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., when to use claim or defer_intent instead), leaving routing between the 15 sibling tools to inference.

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