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

Annotations cover only readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavior: each call is confirmed by default and can be toggled off, it 'reaches other people' so user confirmation is required, and it needs a Cotlet API key scoped to this app. It stops short of describing reversibility or side effects beyond the rank record.

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 confirmation guidance is split across two overlapping sentences ('you confirm each call' / 'confirm with the user before each call') and the phrase 'as in Zen Planner's belt and skill tracking' is filler. Tighter phrasing would remove the redundancy.

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 still covers the agent-critical behavior for a mutation tool: what it writes, the confirmation model, the open-world reach, and the auth requirement. It omits what the call returns and any error/validation behavior, keeping it short of full completeness.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only marginal context ('from your own rank structure'), leaving baseline 3 appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Move a student to their next belt or rank,' and clarifies it records a rank from the user's own rank structure. This clearly separates it from sibling operations like enroll_in_membership or create_prospect.

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?

The description explains confirmation behavior but never says when to use this over alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g., person must already be a member, rank must exist in the structure). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'move a student to their next rank.'

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