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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only mark it non-readOnly and non-destructive. It discloses idempotency ('a repeat never starts another worker'), the conditional side effect (worker starts only when launch_won is true), durability ('one durable preparation attempt'), cost ('free'), and the required scope ('act'). All meaningful traits the agent needs.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: precondition, side-effect condition, idempotency, and cost/scope. Front-loaded with the gating condition and no filler.

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?

Covers the operation semantics and safety profile well for a 7-param write tool with no output schema. Leaves target enum values and the retry/legacy-state parameters to the schema, which is acceptable given its partial descriptions, but a sentence on the target choices would improve 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 57%, so roughly half the parameters are described in the schema (move_id, operation, expected_attempt_id) and the others (note, target, expected_legacy_state, expected_legacy_updated_at) rely on enums or are undescribed. The description adds nothing about parameters, so it neither compensates for the gap nor duplicates the schema. 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?

Clear verb+resource: accepts a move, with the precondition that the founder has said yes. Distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like ship_move, propose_move, and review_move by framing this as the acceptance step, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

States the gating condition ('only after the founder says yes') and mentions the launch_won=true trigger, which is clear context for when to invoke. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to a specific alternative sibling for the pre-acceptance flow.

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