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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and destructive. The description adds specific side effects: records source version and usage, saves a draft, and resets review, while explicitly stating it does not approve or export. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies what actually happens. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying essential information. The core action is front-loaded, followed by side-effect boundaries. No redundancy or filler; every clause contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and limits.

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?

This is a complex 8-parameter mutation with no output schemacars. The description covers side effects well, but does not clarify what makes an entry 'eligible approved', how to determine answerId/answerRevision, or what the tool returns after success. The agent is left to infer some critical context, though the tool name and description give a reasonable starting point.

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 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description partially compensates by linking 'Adapt... to one exact answer' to adaptedAnswer and 'Explain compatibility' to compatibilityNoteschers, but leaves entryId, answerId, revisions, and other parameters to inference or minimal schema text. It does not fully make up for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the verb ('Adapt') and the resource ('an eligible approved entry') and the target ('one exact answer in this dossier'). It also explicitly excludes approval and export, which distinguishes it from approval and export tools. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many 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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have an approved library entry that needs to be adapted to a specific answer in a dossier. The description notes eligibility and what the tool does not do (approve/export), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No sibling tool is named as a differentiator.

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