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

Annotations already declare that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: 'approve' creates a rule, 'later' defers for a week, and only one suggestion can be decided per call. It does not cover permissions or auth requirements, but it adds meaningful workflow behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the action first, then gives usage rules and decision semantics. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly. It covers when to call, how to interpret decisions, one-per-call behavior, and the do-not-decide-for-the-writer constraint.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds semantic value by clarifying that text is only used with 'approve' and only when the writer rewords the rule, and by explaining the behavioral effect of each decision enum. It does not add much for writer/workspace 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record the writer's answer to one suggestion from get_voice_profile.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by tying it directly to the suggestion workflow and clarifying that it records one decision per call.

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 explicit usage conditions: ask the writer first, call only after they answer, and never decide for the writer. It also defines what each decision value means in workflow terms, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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