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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect ('Marks FO rows parked — does not kill Terminal processes'), the preview behavior ('dry_run=true previews only'), and the safety rule about blocked_on_operator hosts. It also notes write-tier approval requirements. These are concrete behavioral insights beyond the bare operation.

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?

The description is a dense paragraph covering many aspects (trigger, targeting modes, exclusions, side effect, approval) without redundancy. It is longer than the minimal example but every sentence adds information. The bracketed approval note is a minor structural extraneity but relevant.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, how to target, dry-run behavior, exclusions, and side effects, making it safe for an agent to invoke correctly. The only gap is the absence of return-value information, but that's not required given the description's depth.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between session_ids and stale_running ('Pass session_ids for explicit targets, or stale_running=true'), and clarifies 'stale' as 'failed freshness (no recent heartbeat)' — a detail not fully defined in the schema. It also points to list_attention_sessions / get_attention_quest as sources for session_ids, though the schema already includes this.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Park THIS operator's coding host sessions') and resource ('coding host sessions'), with a hygiene purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like list_attention_sessions and upsert_attention_session by focusing on parking (de-prioritization) rather than listing or upserting.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after "clean tabs" / "park ghosts" / list shows dead running hosts.' It also explains the two targeting modes (session_ids vs stale_running) and the exclusion rule: 'Never parks blocked_on_operator needs-you hosts unless listed in session_ids.' The note that it does not kill Terminal processes provides an alternative boundary.

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