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

The description says "Preparation changes nothing," which directly contradicts annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false. Although it adds useful details about no file copying and confirmation-card expiry, the contradiction with structured safety metadata is serious.

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-loads the key precondition before explaining consequences. Each sentence adds relevant constraint or behavior, though some phrasing is terse and the title is not well aligned with the tool name.

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?

It provides useful behavioral context and an output schema exists, but it leaves all four input parameters undocumented and contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation. For a preparation/confirmation tool with expectedRevision concurrency semantics, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must explain the four parameters, but it does not. It only refers conceptually to a "new intent" and does not clarify taskId, expectedRevision, locale, or initialIntent semantics.

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 action: binding a new application intent to a five-minute confirmation card after an explicit request to abandon the draft. It is fairly clear and distinguishable from a real restart, though it does not name the sibling restart_application explicitly.

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 an explicit precondition: use only after an explicit request to abandon the current draft and start an independent application. It also notes that changing the intent requires a new card, but it does not explicitly route the agent to restart_application or other alternatives.

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