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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that 'reverse' only marks an action and does not alter anything else about the account, and it clarifies the effect of 'restore'. It also mentions that a named person is required. However, it does not reveal potential side effects, reversibility, permission needs, or what happens if the action is already reversed, nor does it clarify the ambiguous 'Record.' instruction. It provides some transparency but lacks thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 concise—two sentences plus 'Record.'—and clearly separates the two action modes with labels. The main points are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. The trailing 'Record.' is cryptic and potentially unnecessary, but it does not overly detract from the overall clarity. It is well-structured and free of redundant wording, earning a 4.

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 has six parameters with conditional requirements, and the description explains the two modes but does not explicitly mention which IDs are needed for each (relying on the schema). It does not describe return values or post-action effects, and there is no output schema. Given the schema covers parameters thoroughly, the description is adequate for basic usage but lacks completeness regarding implicit behavior and outcomes after the call.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all six parameters, each already described with clear conditions (e.g., action_id required for 'reverse', rule_id for 'restore'). The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does summarize the 'named person' requirement, but that is already encoded in the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 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 defines two distinct behaviors: 'reverse' marks an action as reversed to prevent repetition, and 'restore' puts a set-aside correction back into force. It uses specific verbs ('mark', 'put') and resources ('action', 'correction'), and emphasizes that nothing else changes. This precisely explains what the tool does and effectively distinguishes between its two modes, making it immediately clear to an agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, nor does it state conditions like 'use this when you need to undo an action' or 'if you want to reverse a different entity, use another tool'. The only explicit requirement—'Named person required either way'—is a precondition, not a usage guideline. There is no exclusion or comparison to other options, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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