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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the optimistic-concurrency signal 'expectedVersion', which is genuinely useful context for a mutation. However, it omits that preflight attestations must be true and does not describe the 1-50 placement constraint or idempotent-retry behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the input note. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail rather than being elegantly economical.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, four parameters, no output schema, and preflight gating, the description is very thin. It omits the required top-level workspaceId, the 1-50 placement bound, the mandatory attestations, and any relation to the preflight/lock/verify siblings, leaving the agent to reconstruct the workflow from sibling names.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents workspaceId, idempotencyKey, the attestation flags, and the nested input object, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description's claim that input 'requires expectedVersion and payload' is actually incomplete, since the top-level workspaceId is also required and goes unmentioned.

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 (Save) and resource (placement revision), but the tool is named save_sulvo_placement_plan while the description talks about a 'placement revision,' creating slight ambiguity about what exactly is being persisted. It also does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling lock_sulvo_placement_revision, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Given siblings like lock_sulvo_placement_revision, run_sulvo_activation_preflight, and verify_sulvo_placement_installation, an agent is left to infer the ordering of these steps on its own.

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