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

Annotations already provided readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavior beyond those flags: the saved request, revision, and grants remain identical on retry, and conflicts require a fresh selection. This enriches the agent's expectations without contradicting 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 description is short and front-loaded with the main action. The phrase 'saved request, and revision complete grants remain identical' introduces some awkward wording, but overall every sentence contributes useful information and there is 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 a write tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the retry scenario and conflict condition, but it does not explain what a 'receipt' is, what conflict specifically means, or the role of each parameter. The annotations and partial schema leave several contextual 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 description coverage is 50%, leaving selectionId and selectionRevision undocumented in the schema. The description only loosely refers to 'the saved request, revision and complete grants remain identical' and does not explain what selectionId or selectionRevision mean or how they are used. It therefore fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 precise verb (retry), a specific resource (original library access command), and a clear operation stage (after inspecting its receipt). This distinguishes the tool from its siblings such as apply, inspect, and prepare without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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 says when to use this tool: to retry the original library access after inspecting its receipt. It also gives a when-not case by stating a conflict requires a fresh reviewed selection, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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