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

The description discloses concrete side effects beyond annotations: 'Sets product_status to in progress, builder_host, and builder_session_id' and explicitly states what it does not do. It also adds write-tier approval behavior and clarifies builder_host constraints and builder_mode limits. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations such as destructiveHint=true.

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 and front-loaded, front-loading the core action and effect, then routing, then approval guidance. Minor redundancy exists between 'Use when a Cursor session...' and the 'Routing:' paragraph, but every section contributes useful 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, side effects, non-effects, routing, permissions, approval requirements, and parameter constraints. It does not specify error/return behavior or failure cases, but there is no output schema and the annotations already cover read-only and destructive hints.

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 six parameters. The description adds some reinforcing constraints, such as 'builder_host must be cursor (cursor, cursor-desk, cursor/work)' and builder_mode 'external (default) or sticky... spawn is refused,' but most parameter meaning is already in the schema, putting this at the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stamp an external Cursor session as the owner of a FreedomOS product request' and immediately gives the consequence ('Code Factory does not spawn a second builder'). It further differentiates itself by listing exclusions ('does not open a terminal, does not remint, and does not cancel a build'), making it clearly distinct from related tools like request_attention_spawn.

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 routing guidance is present: 'Use when a Cursor session already owns the product build and Code Factory must not spawn a second builder,' and it names the sibling not to call ('do not call request_attention_spawn'). The membership restriction and approval-tier note also clarify the conditions under which the tool may be invoked.

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