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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write profile is known. The description adds a real behavioral requirement beyond the annotations ("ALWAYS ask for confirmation before writing"), but omits the dry-run preview path exposed by the confirm parameter and says nothing about what record is created or whether re-logging overwrites.

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 sentences, purpose first, directive second, no filler. Efficient and front-loaded, though it is arguably too terse to structure the confirmation and dry-run nuances it touches on.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core act and the confirmation rule but leaves open the dry-run/commit semantics and whether logging is additive or overwrites an existing candling record for the batch.

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 100%, so every parameter including clears, quitters, candleDate, and idempotencyKey is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Log egg candling fertility results") and scopes it to "an active batch." An agent can distinguish it from the other log_* siblings by the candling/fertility domain, though it never names the closest alternatives (log_hatch_result, log_hatch_set) to disambiguate.

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?

"For an active batch" implies the prerequisite state, and the confirmation directive gives a procedural rule, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. -not guidance against sibling logging tools. Usage is only implied.

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