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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly states 'Read-only; no side effects.' It adds context about the return format (Markdown report) and the behavior for deletedPaths (flags removal candidates), which goes beyond annotations. While the description aligns with annotations, it could mention rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is quite thorough. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and follow-up actions. No waste; every clause adds value — the timing guidance, read-only assurance, and linkage to sibling tools. Excellent structure with clear flow.

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?

The tool is complex with 3 params and no output schema, but the description covers the purpose, usage timing, and follow-ups. It explains the specific outputs (conventions, gaps, removal candidates) and the return format. It could optionally mention what to do if paths don't overlap anything, but overall it's complete enough given the schema richness.

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 parameters in detail. The description adds context about how deletedPaths influence removal candidate flags and the repository omission behavior (returns list of repos), but these are already in the schema. The description doesn't add significant new meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: given file paths about to change, it returns conventions, documentation gaps, and related docs with overlapping evidence, plus a net-new analysis and removal candidates. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on impact analysis before code changes, explicitly naming propose_doc_update and propose_doc_removal as follow-ups, making the purpose specific and non-ambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: call it BEFORE writing code so doc updates land in the same PR, and then use propose_doc_update or propose_doc_removal for follow-ups. It also implicitly sets when not to use it (i.e., after code changes), which helps the agent choose between this and other moxie tools like search_docs or list_docs for different needs.

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