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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: history is preserved, affected answers are flagged for fresh review, and affected exports are blocked by current-proof checks. Combined with destructiveHint/idempotentHint this gives an agent a good picture of side effects. It stops short of describing the response or failure modes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and scope, and each sentence carries distinct information (action, side effects, replacement path). No filler, though the third sentence's phrasing is slightly compressed.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema and five required parameters, the description covers consequences well but omits which parameters feed the retire decision (revision, reason) and any response behavior. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent must infer from the schema.

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 description coverage is only 40% (projectId and idempotencyKey documented, revision/claimVersionId/reason not), and the description says nothing about any parameter. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, so an agent gets no help on the 64-hex revision or the reason field.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Retire the exact claim version'), scoping the action to one version rather than the claim generally. Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like read_business_claim or propose_business_claim, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides prerequisites and downstream conditions ('with reviewer rights', 'Replacement requires a separately proposed and approved version'), which is real guidance. However there is no explicit statement of when to choose this versus siblings such as request_business_claim_approval or resolve_contradiction.

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