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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the possible outcome states (including the reverted-with-failing-monitors case), but says nothing about polling cadence, terminality of states, or auth needs.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the state sequence. No filler. The trailing clause 'with the monitors that broke' is slightly compressed but still parseable.

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 one-parameter read-only progress tool with no output schema, describing the state progression effectively communicates what the call returns. Missing only minor operational detail such as whether it must be polled or when states become terminal.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema note 'From start_safe_update' already explains its origin, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource: tracking a safe update or deactivation and its lifecycle states. The state machine (applying → verifying → passed, or reverted) makes the returned concept concrete. Sibling get_updates is not named, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 the lifecycle framing and by the changeId schema note pointing to start_safe_update, but the description itself never says when to call this versus start_safe_update or get_updates, nor whether it should be polled repeatedly. No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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