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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: no new approval is inferred, the operation must reuse the original exact revision, and prior success should be checked before replaying. This is useful behavioral detail beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose before conditions. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct constraint; no filler.

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 an idempotent recovery mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, ordering, and idempotency well. Missing only explicit return/outcome expectations, which is minor given the recovery framing.

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 only 40%, and the description adds meaning for confirmationId (the challenge ID from the confirmation) and revision (the original exact revision). The remaining params (entryId, projectId, idempotencyKey) rely on the schema. Partial compensation for the coverage gap, so a baseline 3.

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 specific verb and scenario: recovering after a human library confirmation succeeded but its application was interrupted. An agent can tell it apart from confirm_library_promotion (approval) and request_library_promotion (request), since this is the recovery/apply step. It is clear but does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (confirmation succeeded, application interrupted) and prerequisites (existing actor-bound promotion, current evidence). It also warns to inspect the entry first if application may already have succeeded. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for that inspection, so not a full 5.

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