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

Beyond the annotations it discloses audited mutation, optimistic-concurrency via expectedRevision, the append-only nature of comments, and two business rules (assignment grants no approval rights; completion cannot clear a proof or export gate). It also flags the side effect of queued assignment emails and explicitly states it does not confirm delivery, which annotations cannot convey.

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 operation list is front-loaded and every following sentence carries a distinct constraint or side-effect caveat rather than filler. It is a single dense paragraph, which is slightly heavy, but nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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 5-required-param mutation tool with no output schema and only 40% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral and authorization context well. The remaining gap is the update-kind taxonomy, which the agent must reverse-engineer from the schema's const enums.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining that expectedRevision is the revision returned by helvabase_work_items. However, it never explains the three update kinds (deadline, assignment, clarification) or which verb maps to which kind, leaving the largest part of the parameter surface 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?

The description names a specific verb set (update, assign, reassign, complete, cancel, reopen) against a concrete resource (an existing dossier action) and scopes it to the exact revision returned by helvabase_work_items. That reference also distinguishes it from the sibling that creates work items and the one that lists them, so an agent can route without opening a 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 states the precondition that targets must exist in the current authorized dossier and directs the agent to helvabase_work_items for the revision, which is effectively workflow guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over record_work_item or what to do if the revision is stale, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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