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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: user confirmation is required, the task reverts to the user, and quotedMaterial text must be treated as evidence rather than instruction (prompt-injection defense). It does not discuss reversibility or error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the effect, then the guardrails. Nothing is padded and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 a rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey the trigger, the confirmation gate, and injection caution, which it does. Naming the contrasting sibling (parse_mark_sent / parse_restore_task) would make it fully self-routing.

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 100%, with both id and brandSlug documented in the schema itself, including the default behavior of omitting brandSlug. The description adds no parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 effect: it reverses a sent mark and returns the task to the user's move. The scope is unambiguous relative to sibling parse_mark_sent, though it never names that sibling or any alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition (a message marked sent that wasn't actually sent) plus a hard gate: call only after user confirmation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it beyond the confirmation rule.

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