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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: it needs the write scope, re-asking with the same id replaces the question and clears its answer, and a null pick means unanswered. The remaining gap is minor since the output shape is documented separately.

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 core ask-and-wait instruction is front-loaded, but a large middle block explains what the panel is, who shares it, and that the page rendering is still rolling out to the founder's account — context that does not change how the tool is invoked. Roughly half the text could be cut without losing invocation guidance.

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 six-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant behavior: waiting, continuation via panel_watch, replacement semantics, and required scope. The panel-infrastructure prose is surplus rather than missing information, so nothing an agent needs to call it is absent.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks for id — that reusing an id replaces the prior question and clears its answer, which changes how an agent should pick ids. Other parameter behavior (wait_seconds cap, conversation_id default) is only restated from 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource (ask the person a question, answered with one press, with two or more options) and scopes it to the panel. It also implicitly separates this from panel_watch (which it names) and from panel_open/panel_update by focusing on a question with options.

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 concrete when-to guidance: pass wait_seconds to wait for the press, call panel_watch with after_rev when the result is null, and omit conversation_id to target the conversation the person last opened. It does not explicitly contrast with panel_update or panel_open, so the sibling boundary is left partly implicit.

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