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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: the question stays open and is marked assumed, held tasks block on it, and an overturn reopens those tasks. That task-lifecycle consequence is exactly the sort of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of stating permissions or whether the assumption can be withdrawn by the agent itself, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the motivating condition, then the state consequence. The semicolon-clause structure is dense but every clause carries information about the question's lifecycle.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the result semantics – and it does: assumed state, open question, held tasks waiting, overturn reopens. For a four-parameter tool, that is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and anticipate the aftermath.

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 75%, with descriptions for answer, option, and project, so the schema already does most of the work. The description only says 'pick an option', adding no format, indexing, or project-scoping detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 communicates the action – pick an option on a pending question and continue – and implies the question is marked assumed. However, it never names the resource being assumed from (a question/answer) until incidental phrasing, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'answer', which is the critical contrast an agent must make.

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?

'Can't wait for the human?' gives an implied trigger (human unresponsive/unavailable), which is genuine guidance. But it never names 'answer' as the alternative, never says when assuming is inappropriate, and leaves the boundary between answering and assuming to inference.

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