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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation in a closed world. The description adds a consent prerequisite ('only when your person says what works'), but it does not explain the actual state change, reversibility, overwrite behavior, or authorization details beyond what the schema says for token.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with the consent condition front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the underspecification noted elsewhere.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and half the parameters undocumented in the schema, one sentence is not enough. It leaves key parameter meanings, side effects, and the relationship to sibling choice tools unexplained.

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 only 50%: token and optionIds are documented, while spaceId and activityId are not. The description does not compensate by explaining those parameters or the relationship between activityId, spaceId, and optionIds.

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 states a verb ('Tick') and resource ('activity choices'), but 'tick' is ambiguous: it does not clarify whether this selects, confirms, marks complete, or overwrites choices. It also gives no sibling differentiation among activities_get_choice, activities_offer_choice, activities_lock_choice, and similar tools.

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 gives one usage condition: 'only when your person says what works.' That is an implied guideline, but it does not name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool versus activities_get_choice or activities_lock_choice.

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