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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important traits, namely gated execution with an error result when blocked and exactly-once semantics per idempotency_key, but it omits auth requirements, side effects of execution, and what the response looks like beyond a blocked error.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the gating and idempotency rules without filler. It is dense but appropriately sized for a tool with no annotations or 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?

This is a complex execution tool with no output schema, no annotations, zero schema description coverage, and a nested arguments object. The description covers the gate and idempotency but leaves critical context missing, including parameter meanings, expected side effects, and failure or return behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It explains idempotency_key semantics and implies wake_id, but the 'tool' parameter and the nested 'arguments' object are left entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: execution on one wake under a probationary gate. It is clear enough to distinguish this as an execution operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as hib_run_wake or hib_resolve_wake.

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?

It gives a key usage condition: execution is blocked until dependent checks PASS/ACCEPTED, and it executes once per idempotency_key. However, it does not say when to choose this over hib_run_wake or other sibling execution tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the gate condition.

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