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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint=true/idempotentHint=true annotations by specifying what is destroyed (replaces saved answer text), what is cleared (prior review), and what the operation does NOT do (does not approve or export). This is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot carry. Could add auth/permission requirements.

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 and constraint, then consequences, then negative scope. 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 destructive, 8-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences and post-conditions well but omits parameter-level meaning for six of eight fields and gives no eligibility criteria for 'approved entry' or auth requirements.

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?

Eight required parameters with only 25% schema coverage; only projectId and idempotencyKey have descriptions. The description mentions 'revision supplied' and 'compatibility', loosely mapping to revision/answerRevision and compatibilityNotes, but leaves entryId, answerId, adaptedAnswer, and the distinction between revision and answerRevision undocumented.

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 (reuse/adapt) and resource (approved library entry) with clear scope: overwriting the target answer at an exact revision. Distinguishes itself somewhat from propose_library_entry and retire_library_entry, though it never names those siblings 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?

Implies usage via 'eligible approved entry' and 'requires fresh review', which hints at preconditions, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance relative to siblings like propose_library_entry, apply_library_promotion, or request_library_promotion.

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