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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a mechanism ("revalidation") but omits whether this is a mutation, what state it restores, whether it requires prior context/permissions, or how failure is handled.

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?

It is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. A single jargon phrase that an agent cannot act on does not earn its place.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly all the agent has, and it conveys almost nothing about effect or result. The void left by missing annotations is not filled.

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?

The schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No parameter detail is missing or required.

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?

"Resume by capsule revalidation" restates the tool name (capsule_resume) with jargon rather than explaining the resource being resumed or what a "capsule" is. It does not distinguish this tool from any sibling (add_actuals, settle, attestation), so an agent cannot tell what it actually operates on.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. The agent is left to infer the trigger condition entirely.

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