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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the first send creates the request and its token doubles as the receipt token used by request_status and offers, resends create a revision, and 'This orders nothing' pre-empts the natural but wrong assumption that sending commits a purchase. Consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, though it says nothing about the op_id idempotency key or contact handling.

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 action and tightly written, with the crucial 'orders nothing' caveat placed last for emphasis. The first sentence is long and parenthetical-heavy, which slightly slows parsing but 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential semantics: what gets created, how revisions work, and that no order is placed. The undocumented contact and op_id parameters are the remaining gap, but the core mental model an agent needs is present.

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 50%; the schema already documents id, token, and action, and the description reinforces revision ('name the revision the buyer saw') and the token's dual role. It adds nothing about op_id or the required contact object, so it only partially compensates 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 and resource ('Send the requirement to Nestproof') and goes further by explaining the two modes: first send records the request, later send records a revision of the same request. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (edit_requirement, submit_request) to distinguish itself, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Once the buyer says to' gives a clear precondition, and the first-send vs later-send split tells the agent when to use this versus keeping a draft. It stops short of naming alternatives like edit_requirement or submit_request, leaving the sibling routing to inference.

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