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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, but the description adds substantial context: max 8 sections, 3-successive-correction cap, preservation of untouched content/caveats, full reassembly and revalidation, creation of a new immutable review subject, and the prohibition on claiming automatic approval. These go well beyond the annotation set, though the retry/rate semantics could be more concrete.

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?

Front-loads the primary use case, then alternative routing, then behavioral guarantees and limits. Six dense sentences with little waste, though the constraint sentences stack up and could be tightened.

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?

Behavioral and lifecycle context is rich, and the immutable-review-subject outcome substitutes for a missing output schema. However, for a 9-param nested schema with an 11% description coverage and no output schema, the lack of any explanation of the revision/provenance/basis parameters leaves an agent under-equipped to construct a valid call.

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 11% (essentially just projectId), so the description must carry the parameter burden for 9 required params. It only hints at replacements ('explicitly named sections', 'at most eight') and expectedRevision ('exact current draft revision'); basis, analysisRevision, declaredProvenance and idempotencyKey semantics are never explained.

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+resource+scope ('replace at most eight explicitly named sections against the exact current draft revision') and restricts applicability to 'legacy v1 drafts'. It explicitly names the sibling to use instead for question-oriented drafts, so an agent can distinguish it from helvabase_submit_draft without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('For legacy v1 drafts'), an explicit when-not plus the alternative ('For question-oriented drafts ... use helvabase_submit_draft'), and a failure-escalation rule ('obtain evidence or human arbitration after repeated failures'). Nothing is left to inference.

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