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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, it discloses meaningful behavior: the freeze is one-time only, it never 'silently changes original method or evidence', and it mandates a fresh staff independence review. That adds genuine immutability/authorization context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the actor constraint and one-time nature are front-loaded before the review requirement. Efficient for the amount of constraint it conveys.

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 six-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions but does not explain how checkId, interests, conflicted, and operatorApproved interact or what the freeze actually produces. It is adequate but leaves integration gaps an agent would have to infer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters well, establishing a baseline of 3. The description echoes the model/runtime and conflict concepts mapping to modelKey, runtimeKey, and conflicted, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 conveys a specific action on a specific resource — freezing/completing legacy model/runtime and conflict disclosures — and the title reinforces it. However, the phrasing ('freeze missing legacy ... disclosures once') is dense domain jargon, and it does not distinguish this tool from nearby read/search siblings such as morrowkin_read_check or morrowkin_search_checks.

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 real preconditions: the actor must be the 'Original author', the action is allowed 'once', and it 'Requires a new staff independence review'. These are usable selection constraints, though no explicit alternative or when-not guidance is offered (which may be acceptable given no obvious sibling alternative).

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