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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the setting defaults off, that a no is persisted so assistants do not re-ask, that only Claude Code or Codex on a Hamloy-linked computer can call it, and how the human can later disable it on their account page. These are substantive behavioral and authorization details not present in the annotations.

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 information is useful and mostly front-loaded, but the first sentence is long and indirect, and some phrases ('on this computer, in this folder') are repeated. Every sentence contributes, but the structure could be tighter and more imperative.

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 annotations, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the default state, the human-in-the-loop requirement, consequences of each answer, authorization restrictions, and how to reverse the setting. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 semantic guidance for yes/no: it tells the agent to call with yes: true after consent or no: true after refusal, and explains that no is retained. It does not add much about the project parameter beyond the schema.

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 makes clear that this tool records the human's consent for whether the board may start Claude Code or Codex in this project/computer/folder. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it uses a noun phrase rather than a direct verb like 'records' and the name 'start_here' is misleading on its own.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('ask them, and call this with yes: true once they say yes, or no: true if they say no') and when not to use it ('Never on your own'). It also explains the consequence of a no and that a yes remains possible later, giving complete usage context.

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