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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the ad is stamped with provenance 'user' and will 'count in angle results from then on' — a persistent side effect the agent needs to know. This is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 core action is front-loaded, followed by effect, user-agreement caution, and Space scoping. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information with little waste, though the density of domain jargon slightly reduces readability.

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 nested-body mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action, side effect, usage precondition, and Space scoping — the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. It does not explain what a successful confirmation returns, but with no output schema that gap is minor.

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% at the top level, but the nested items fields (adId, angleType) carry no schema descriptions. The description compensates by explaining adId names an active ad and angleType comes 'from the closed vocabulary' to correct the reading, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not enumerate the vocabulary values, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 states a specific action — turning readings into angle stamps on active ads — and distinguishes it from the read-side sibling get_own_ad_reading. The domain jargon ('readings', 'angle stamps') is somewhat opaque, but the verb+resource+effect is clear enough for an agent to identify it as the write/confirmation counterpart.

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?

'Ask the user first; confirm only ads they agreed to' gives an explicit precondition for use, which is the key gating behavior. It also points to set_active_space and the space_id override for scoping. It stops short of naming when a different confirmation tool applies, but the core when-to-use is well covered.

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