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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says the previous result is overwritten, whether re-recording is allowed, or what happens to downstream state, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the mutation and its outcome set with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the usage and behavioral detail noted above.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write with no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what the call returns, whether the result is reversible, or whether recording requires an inspection in a particular state. Annotations cover safety flags but not these operational gaps.

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 67% and the two documented parameters already explain the id lookup and that notes replaces existing notes. The description's only added value is framing notes as optional, and its partial value list (omitting "draft") is less complete than the enum itself, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema baseline.

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 ("Marks an inspection") plus the outcome values, which cleanly separates it from create_inspection, get_inspection and list_inspections. However, it enumerates only three of the four enum values and silently omits "draft", so the stated purpose is slightly narrower than what the tool actually accepts.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of create_inspection or update-style siblings, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. that the inspection must already exist and be in a state that permits recording). The only routing hint, "inspection_id from list_inspections", lives in the schema rather than the description.

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