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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default verdict ('keep'), the overwrite semantics ('the last verdict wins'), the note length cap (280 chars), the enumerated reason values, and that the operation is 'Free'. It omits auth/permission behavior despite an api_key parameter existing, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 core action and default are front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information (default verdict, overwrite rule, reason values, note limit, retrieval, cost) with no filler. It is dense but not bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the behavioral essentials an agent needs: default, overwrite behavior, reason vocabulary, note constraints, cost, and where keeps are later found. Missing only auth/permission context for the api_key parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the substantive parameters: it defines verdict values and default, enumerates all reason options, and caps note at 280 characters. hook_id is self-evident from the name and api_key is left unexplained, but the semantically important parameters are well covered.

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 specific verb+resource combination ('Keep or reject a hook'), so an agent immediately knows this sets a keep/reject verdict on a hook. It references the retrieval counterpart list_keeps, giving some sibling orientation, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from related tools like keep_find or clear_decision.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool to record a verdict on a hook, and the note that keeps surface via list_keeps clarifies the downstream effect. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no named alternative for competing actions.

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