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

The description goes beyond annotations (which only set readOnlyHint=false etc.) by detailing the full return shape for both success (pending vs active status) and failure (typed reasons like forbidden, invalid, approve-failed, tenant-not-provisioned). It highlights the 'CONSEQUENTIAL' nature, policy bypass for free_push_with_retract, and the retraction capability via floorcast_unpush. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes extensive behavioral details, edge cases, and references to other tools. While informative, it could be more concise and structured (e.g., separate sections for behavior, return values, and parameter notes). Still, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, policy routing, multiple return scenarios), the description covers most essential aspects: push destination, policy defaults, status outcomes, failure reasons, and validation. It references another tool for story shape. No output schema exists, but return values are fully described. Minor gap: no explanation of each parameter's purpose or constraints, but overall complete for agent decision-making.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description only vaguely mentions 'Same story shape + validation as floor10_submit_highlight' and 'Args: the HighlightStory fields', without explaining individual parameters or constraints. Given the schema has 11 parameters including nested objects, the description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool pushes a HighlightStory to a floor's MEMBERS WIRE with policy routing. It specifies the verb 'push' and the resource 'floor's members wire', and distinguishes from siblings like floorcast_unpush and floor10_submit_highlight by mentioning policy bypass and same story shape.

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 explains when to use it (member push) and contrasts the default vs. free push behavior. It mentions that non-floor10 push is currently denied, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools like floor10_submit_highlight or floorcast_unpush, though the sibling names and context imply relationship.

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