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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema: the note is persisted as a durable 'correction the firm learns from,' i.e., a lasting side effect on firm knowledge. However, it omits whether the deliverable's status changes, whether the owner is notified, permission requirements, and whether the action is reversible.

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 short sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded and the persistence consequence follows immediately, so a skimming agent gets both facts in one pass.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the durable side effect of the note but leaves out state transitions, notification behavior, and permission/authorization context. Adequate to call it, incomplete to predict its consequences.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds modest value by framing the note as a record of 'what is wrong' that is retained, but gives no length, format, or content guidance beyond the schema's 'What to change, in the owner's words.'

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 ('send a deliverable back to be redone') plus the payload ('with what is wrong'), which is clearly the inverse of the sibling approve_and_send even though that sibling isn't named. An agent can distinguish it from approval/sending tools from the description alone.

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 trigger condition is implied — a deliverable is wrong and needs redoing — but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use approve_and_send to accept, or get_deliverable to inspect first). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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