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

Annotations declare destructive/write/idempotent but the description adds real behavior: values can be cleared with an empty string, result is derived from steps when the protocol has steps, resolution has a derived default, and the row is pushed to review. The agent-signature restriction is the single most valuable disclosure. It still doesn't spell out overwrite semantics for omitted columns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core instruction, then column semantics, then step behavior, then workflow notes. Dense but every clause carries semantic load; only the trailing review sentence is arguably peripheral.

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 nested, 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and destructive annotation, the description covers value vocabularies, step scoping, evidence routing, signature limits, and post-write review state. It omits only return/confirmation behavior and permission requirements.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond it by enumerating the allowed values the schema itself does not constrain (decision include|exclude, result pass|fail|empty, resolution passed|failed|passed_with_deviation|failure_accepted|empty), documenting the per-line format of `equipment`, and redefining `step`'s scoped field set.

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 ('Record data in one Test Plan entry') and immediately explains the payload shape. It distinguishes itself from traceable_test_plan_read (which supplies the entry id) and from traceable_test_plan_evidence, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes evidence to traceable_test_plan_evidence and states a hard when-not: the tester signature 'cannot be applied by an agent'. It also clarifies when to pass `step` versus entry-level columns. It stops short of stating prerequisites, such as needing entryId/protocol from a prior read, in a prescriptive when-to-use form.

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