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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds substantial context beyond that: append-only semantics with no edit/delete, that the latest entry becomes the effectiveVerdict read back by other tools, and the ownership constraint where a foreign session reads as not found.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then prerequisites, then parameter selection, then behavioral consequences. Dense but nearly every sentence carries unique, non-redundant information; slight length and backtick-heavy references keep it from a clean 5.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the full call path: prerequisite read, precondition on failureAnalysis.source, parameter selection per case, consequences (effectiveVerdict), and the ownership/permission boundary. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning: failureKey's source path and omission rule for single-failure runs, the correct/incorrect dichotomy, and the conditional requirement of correctedCategory when verdict is incorrect. It reinforces rather than merely repeats the schema.

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: 'Record a verdict on one automatically-computed failure analysis'. It explicitly distinguishes its scope from the sibling read tools by stating it publishes feedback that automation_session_get / automation_report subsequently return, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Call automation_session_get first — this only works on a run whose failureAnalysis.source is "recorded"'), explains the when-not case (lazily-analysed runs have nothing to give feedback on), and routes per-field usage (failureKey multiplicity, verdict=correct vs incorrect+correctedCategory).

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