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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tip and dirty files are frozen into a backup ref first (recoverable), that the working tree is hard-reset to the default branch, that the editor reloads, and it enumerates failure discriminators. This is exactly the destructive-but-recoverable context an agent needs.

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-loaded with the action and its effect, then mechanism, then failure modes, so an agent can stop reading early. It is dense and somewhat long, and details about reason= discriminators border on return-value territory covered by the output 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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema handling return values, the description supplies the trigger, the mechanics, the recoverability guarantee, and failure semantics. An agent has everything required to call it correctly at the right moment.

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 0% for the single project_id parameter. The description implies the project scope ('the project's parked AI session') but adds no format, source, or constraint detail for the parameter itself. The name is self-evident, so the gap is minor but real.

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 ('Abandon the project's parked AI session') and explains the concrete outcome it produces ('so a git push becomes visible in the editor'). It distinguishes the operation from its sibling adopt_session by pinning down exactly what state it manipulates (a parked session/* HEAD).

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 trigger: 'Call this right after pushing to hand the HEAD back to the default branch.' It also frames failure conditions (no_active_session, head_kept) that clarify when the call is valid. It stops short of naming adopt_session as the contrasting alternative or stating when not to call it.

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