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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states side-effect safety ('never data, never spend'), describes the no-op condition for 'well' ('no-op if nothing is focused'), and discloses the write-tier approval requirement with nuance ('a from-now-on approval makes future calls seamless, a just-once approval re-asks next time').

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 well-structured with an action list, usage scenarios, and a focused card-specific paragraph. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; the bracket note about write-tier is important context that justifies its inclusion.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple verbs, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary operational details: what each verb does, when to use them, which params are needed, the no-op case, and the approval requirement. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly in most scenarios.

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. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by specifying that card_id comes from 'your own get_command_center_items read' and that focus_card with show_content true is the right pattern for presenting approvals. This extra usage guidance elevates it slightly above baseline.

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 verb+resource: 'Route the operator's desk HUD to a view they asked to see' and enumerates the concrete actions (open a door, lock a company zone, drill into money, fill the pixel well, focus a pending card, go back). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring 'UI navigation only: changes what is on screen, never data, never spend'.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use when the operator asks to SEE something on their desk HUD' and 'or signals they are trying to UNDERSTAND the focused item'. It also gives a specific best practice for approvals: 'USE THIS when presenting anything for approval: route it into view FIRST, then speak'.

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