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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, open-world). The description goes further by disclosing key behavior: it fires exactly once into the next tool result and briefing, may create a CRM task, and returns the tripwire id and expiry. It stops short of covering permissions, expiry cleanup, or what happens on repeat calls.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core mechanic front-loaded and the side effects (one-shot firing, CRM task, return values) packed efficiently into the second. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return values (id and expiry) and the lifecycle behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around permissions and durability, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces that paths/symbols are the triggers and supplies an example note wording, but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 concrete action (create a tripwire that warns the next editor of unfinished work) with the mechanism and effect made explicit. It is distinguishable from declare_intent or remember by describing a persistent, trigger-based warning, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 opening phrase "Leave work unfinished safely" implies the usage scenario, and the example clarifies intent. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over declare_intent, remember, or claim, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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