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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the fix's effect is measured at 28, 56 and 90 days, a stale evidence_id causes a no-op with an instruction to re-read the finding, and the call is two-phase with only a summary and confirm code returned. It does not explain the destructiveHint/idempotentHint implications, such as whether repeating the call creates a second record, so a gap remains against the annotation profile.

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?

Four tight sentences that front-load the action, then cover downstream measurement, the staleness guard, and the confirmation gate in logical order. Phrasing like 'the answer says to read the finding again' is slightly indirect but still efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (a summary plus a code for tc_confirm) and the failure path. It falls short only on what tc_confirm expects and on whether a repeat call produces a duplicate record, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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 carry the meaning, and it does partially: applied_on is the fix date and cannot be in the future, evidence_id must match the finding's current evidence, and both IDs come from webops_finding. The required domain parameter is never mentioned, and no format details are given for any parameter, leaving real gaps at zero schema coverage.

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: recording the date a finding's fix was applied on the website, with a validity constraint (not in the future). It also positions the tool within the webops finding workflow by naming webops_finding as the source of the finding and evidence_id, so an agent can tell it apart from webops_accept or webops_draft_fix.

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 clear context for use: it is the step after a fix was made, requires a finding and evidence_id obtained from webops_finding, and must be routed through tc_confirm before anything is recorded. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like webops_accept or webops_reject, so the when-not guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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