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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that: it reveals the sticky queue (ATTENTION_FOCUS_V1), the same bus as spawn, the approval workflow (first use may require manager's approval, from-now-on vs just-once), and instructs not to re-ask in chat. All traits are disclosed without contradicting annotations.

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 dense paragraphs with front-loaded purpose, then triggers, then mechanics, then approval policy. Every sentence adds operational value; no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what happens (queues a sticky), how to pair with related tools, when to prefer it, and what the approval UX looks like ('the card is the yes'). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and know what to expect.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond contextual hints already present in the schema (e.g., session_id origin). Baseline 3 is 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 specific verb and resource: 'Raise an EXISTING coding tab on the operator machine (OS focus) for THIS operator's desk.' Explicitly differentiates from create_attention_directive and request_attention_spawn by clarifying it focuses an existing session rather than injecting work or spawning new ones.

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?

Provides direct trigger phrases ('show me that Grok', 'bring up Claude') and sequencing guidance ('Prefer after list_attention_sessions matched a live session_id'). Explicitly says what it does NOT do ('Does not inject work') and names the complementary tool to pair with (create_attention_directive).

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