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

Beyond annotations, it discloses a security constraint ('never read their mailbox or provide their code') and invalidation semantics ('changes to the report, source context or draft invalidate the request; deterministic blockers remain'). These are meaningful traits not derivable from the idempotent/non-destructive hints, though success/failure behavior is not described.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by security and invalidation rules. No filler, though the phrase 'deterministic blockers remain' is terse and slightly opaque.

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 4-parameter mutation with a nested object, low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers workflow behavior but leaves challengeId and the nested revision fields semantically under-specified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 25% (only idempotencyKey is documented). The description adds meaning for 'code' (must be reviewer-supplied, never fabricated) and implies arbitrationRevision is the exact proposed interpretation whose changes invalidate the request, but 'challengeId' is left to the schema's regex alone with no semantic explanation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record the authenticated reviewer's email confirmation for the exact proposed interpretation.' It is clear that this confirms a previously proposed arbitration, but 'control arbitration' and 'exact proposed interpretation' are jargon that a novice agent must infer, and no sibling (e.g. request_control_arbitration) is named for contrast.

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 states the precondition of use ('use only the code the reviewer supplies after inspecting the questions') and a when-not condition ('changes to the report, source context or draft invalidate the request'). It sets clear context without explicitly naming the alternative sibling, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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