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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the reasons are read weekly and feed Autopilot improvement, but it doesn't address the non-idempotent behavior — whether a second call for the same decline creates a duplicate entry — which an agent would need to know.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and then the trigger condition and rationale. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and downstream use. Minor gaps remain: whether proposal_id is required when the feedback concerns a specific decline, and how repeated submissions are handled, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100% and each field, including the reason enum, is documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces that the note should be 'in their words'; it adds no syntax or mapping detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (record) and resource (why an Autopilot proposal was declined / Autopilot was turned off) with client scope, which is far more specific than the title alone. It doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings like autopilot_note or autopilot_log, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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 gives an explicit trigger: call after autopilot_decline or autopilot_set returns ask_why and the person answers. That is a clear when-to-use condition tied to named siblings. It does not state when not to call (e.g., if the person gives no answer), leaving that edge to inference.

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