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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, covering the write/safety profile. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: 'The wall stays on record beside the finding that beat it,' telling the agent the dead end is preserved rather than deleted. It still omits any return-value or permission detail.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately following. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 three-param mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the operation and its key side effect (the wall is retained). The safety and idempotency profile is covered by annotations, though the result of the call is not described.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description loosely maps to them ('the live finding that got past it' → findingId, 'a short note on how' → note) but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('OVERTURN A DEAD END') and clarifies the inputs required: a live finding and a note. It implies the complement of register_dead_end, but never names that sibling, so an agent gets the action without explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'with the live finding that got past it' — i.e., use this when a dead end has been overcome. However, it gives no explicit when-not condition or pointer to register_dead_end/list_dead_ends for the create/inspect cases, leaving the routing to inference.

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