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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the renewal precondition (credential must be attested under new_ref in the wake's world descriptor), that the service judges the attested descriptor, and that REVOKED-DEAD is refused. It does not discuss reversibility, permissions, or error responses beyond the refusal case, so it is rich but not complete.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single dense sentence built from nested parentheticals, making the renew branch harder to parse than necessary. Little is wasted, but the structure works against scanability.

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-mode tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across six parameters, the description covers preconditions and terminal cases well but omits the new_credential payload entirely and says nothing about what the caller gets back or how the queue item changes.

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. It explains the action enum values and the meaning of new_ref and new_expires_day, but leaves new_credential (a nested object), wake_id, and check_id undocumented, which for a six-parameter tool is a meaningful gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Review queue resolution for one wake') and enumerates the two action modes with the delta categories each applies to. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hib_get_wake or hib_run_wake, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 is clear when each action path applies: accept for DRIFT/RETIRED/BEHAVIOUR-DRIFT/ATTESTATION-REQUIRED deltas, renew for credential renewal with stated prerequisites. It also gives an explicit when-not case (REVOKED-DEAD is terminal and refused). It stops short of routing the agent to sibling tools such as hib_get_review_queue.

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