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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the description carries the real burden and delivers: the first call changes nothing, answered items affect the next retrain, the code is single-use, scoped to this model and these answers, and expires in 10 minutes. These are exactly the behaviors an agent must respect and are not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the two-step flow and code constraints follow in tight order. Every sentence earns its place — the confirmation-code warnings are load-bearing and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the first call returns (the pending record plus a confirmation code). It is largely complete for a mutation tool, though it omits edge cases like partial-batch failures and the 50-item cap.

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 67%, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond it: the confirmation parameter's one-time, 10-minute, answer-scoped semantics, and the relationship between category and the skip/unsure action. It does not explain the model_id source or answer-array limits, but the schema's own field descriptions cover those.

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 — 'Record the user's answers to waiting items' — and enumerates the answer kinds (category, skip, unsure). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like review_queue (which surfaces items) and review_retrain without reading either 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 explicit procedural guidance: first call is a no-op preview returning what will be recorded plus a code, and the second call must use that exact code after user agreement, with the pointed warning 'The user's yes is not the code.' It does not, however, name sibling alternatives for inspecting items or suggest answers, so alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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