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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it leaves the critical traits unknown: whether revalidation is read-only or mutates/repairs state, whether it is expensive or rate-limited, and what happens when drift is found. "Revalidation" weakly hints at a re-run check but discloses nothing concrete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — efficient. The terseness is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, zero parameter documentation, and no disclosure of side effects or cost. For a tool whose name implies a potentially state-changing or expensive validation, the description is not sufficient to call it safely.

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 0% and the description never mentions mirror_id, its format, or where to obtain it. With only one required parameter the burden is light, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 description names an action (revalidation) and a scope (structural drift, one of your mirrors), but "structural drift" is unexplained jargon and it never says whether this detects, reports, or repairs drift. It is more specific than a tautology, yet an agent cannot confidently state what output or side effect to expect.

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 statement of when to call this versus the siblings (create_mirror, rehearse, verify_receipt) and no preconditions such as the mirror needing to exist or having been previously validated. The only implicit cue is that it operates on an existing mirror.

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