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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, and it does: accepting a commitment saves a private task, reply_candidate acceptance never marks completed, and no peer message or automatic completion is sent. It also describes the correction workflow by dismissing with an explanation and explicitly updating the task/request. Some operational details like revision-conflict handling are left unstated, but the main consequences are clear.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: core purpose first, then special-case behavior, then correction guidance. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool and contains no filler or tautology.

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 state-changing tool with four action typesPosted and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the critical prerequisites, side effects, and correction flow. It could be slightly more explicit about where the suggestion/revision comes from or what the response contains, but those gaps do not prevent correct invocation.

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 63%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that revision must be current, outcome is evidence-based, objective is required for commitments, and result_ids accompany applied records. It does not elaborate on dependency_request_id, but the schema already provides its purpose.

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 concrete verb/resource pair: records an action (accepted/applied/dismissed/blocked) for a suggestion with revision and outcome. It carves out special cases such as commitments, reply_candidates, and generic review records, which distinguishes it from nearby sibling tools like request_update or page_update.

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 explicit conditional guidance: accepting a commitment requires an objective, reply_candidate acceptance should mark needs_review rather than completed, and applied records should be made only after performing authorized edits via existing revision-checked tools. It does not explicitly name suggestion_get/suggestions_list as the read-first step, but the alternative editing tools are clearly identified.

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