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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It notes that 'the last verdict wins' (overwrite behavior) and that it is 'Free,' which are useful. However, it does not disclose side effects on existing hooks, error behavior, or authentication requirements. It provides some behavioral context but not a comprehensive picture.

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 two sentences long and packs essential information efficiently. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Keep or reject a hook') and then adds detail. While it is slightly dense, there is no waste, and the structure is logical. It could be more modular but is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and an output schema, the description is not fully complete. It explains the core action and the verdict behavior, and references list_keeps for context. However, it omits any description of what a hook is, how to handle the api_key, and potential errors or side effects. Since annotations are absent, more context is needed for a complete picture.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the verdict parameter (including default) but leaves hook_id and api_key entirely unexplained. The hook_id is only identified by its name in the schema, and api_key is not addressed at all. Since only one of three parameters is clarified, the compensation is insufficient.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Keep or reject a hook.' It also specifies the verdict parameter and its default. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_hook or find_hooks, though the relationship to list_keeps is hinted. This is clear but not fully distinct.

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?

The description mentions that kept hooks come back from list_keeps, which implies a usage context but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. The relationship to list_keeps is a hint but not an explicit routing instruction.

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