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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive and non-idempotent. Beyond those, the description adds two useful facts: the permission required and the persistence effect ('becomes context for future agents'). It still omits whether repeated calls accumulate instructions or how text is retained, so it exceeds the annotation baseline only modestly.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the purpose before the examples and prerequisites. The trailing 'Argument: text' is largely redundant with the schema, but overall there is little waste.

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 simple single-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, examples, persistence and auth. It leaves open whether instructions accumulate, whether they can be overwritten, and what the response is, so it is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives content hints via examples (posting rule, exception) but the closing 'Argument: text' merely restates the schema property name without explaining format, length, or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Spara en instruktion till koncernens LLM-kontext' (save an instruction to the group's LLM context), plus concrete examples (a posting rule or an exception). The purpose is clear and distinct; it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling appears to serve this function.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rationale ('så vi vet om det här framgent') with illustrative examples and names the required permission 'manage_documents'. It does not state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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