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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/openWorld=false; the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: a suggestion trains nothing and records no answer, and it surfaces to the user as 'Your assistant suggests' on the Review Queue screen. That is meaningful context for a write-adjacent tool, though it doesn't cover error handling or what happens to prior suggestions.

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 action and its scope, then explains behavior and the alternative in short clauses. Slightly dense with embedded workflow detail but no filler sentences; every clause contributes.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers what is written, the constraint on category values, the downstream effect, and the routing to review_answer and the labelling guide. Adequate for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around failure modes and the suggestions array limits.

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 50% and the nested item fields carry no descriptions, so the description compensates by defining category ('suggested category', limited to existing model categories), reason ('one-line reason'), and item_id implicitly (waiting items from review_queue). It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, missing only detail on model_id and the 50-item limit.

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 (record a suggested category) and resource (waiting items from review_queue), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the recording-of-answers action performed by review_answer. An agent can tell it apart from review_answer and suggest_labels 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?

Explains the workflow: the user answers on AMT's Review Queue screen, or agrees here and the agent records with review_answer. It also constrains usage ('Only the model's existing categories can be suggested') and points to the labelling guide. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion, but the alternative is named with its selecting condition.

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