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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write with no confirmation semantics, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an explicit human-confirmation requirement before writing and disclosure of a side effect (optionally creating a bird batch). It still does not explain what stats are calculated or how idempotencyKey interacts with retries.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the operational constraint. No filler, and the confirmation warning is placed last for emphasis where it belongs.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors (what it writes, the side effect, and the confirmation gate) and leaves parameter detail to a fully covered schema. It is slightly thin on return-value expectations for the stats calculation, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters including confirm's dry-run semantics and createBirdBatch's default. The description only restates the optional bird-batch behavior, adding nothing the schema lacks, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb+resource (log final hatch count) and enumerates the sub-actions: calculating stats and optionally creating a bird batch. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling log_hatch_set (which starts a batch) by framing this as 'complete a batch', but it never names that alternative 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?

'Complete a batch' implies this is the finalization step after log_hatch_set, which gives implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as log_bird_batch, which the tool can itself trigger.

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