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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral policy: agents may decide without human approval, must state unresolved assumptions, must not claim unanimity from vote counts or silence, and must reopen on veto. That is substantive governance context. It still does not say what happens to the previously recorded decision when overwriting, or what reopening actually resets.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences are short policy clauses rather than filler. The veto sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by explaining the reopen trigger.

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, open-world mutation with 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the social policy well but leaves the mechanics thin. An agent still lacks the id formats, who participantId should be, and what a recorded decision displaces.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description bears the full burden and it only touches two of them: 'decision' is glossed as 'city, restaurant or other detail' and 'reopen' is mentioned topically. eventId, participantId, requestId, questionId, and agent are entirely unexplained, and the reopen mechanics (what it clears, whether decision is then required) are not stated.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Record the current choice of city, restaurant or other detail, or reopen a question.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like vote and ask_question by framing the tool as the terminal action on a question. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 a clear condition for use ('Agents may decide using the group's responses and discussion without separate human approval.') and a clear condition for the reopen path (a human veto). It never says when to prefer vote, add_comment, or ask_question, so the alternatives remain inferential.

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