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

Beyond the minimal annotations, the description discloses the required 'act' scope, that the call is free, that the reported state is the founder's only visibility, and that AfterLaunch only measures a move once it is reported live. It also warns to report only true states, adding real behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core state-carrying purpose, then organizes conditions under 'WHEN' and closes with parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes either state semantics, timing, consequences, or scoping requirements; there is 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?

Given the tool's side-effect nature and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the state machine, timing, truthfulness constraints, scope requirement, and conditional parameters. An agent has enough to know when and how to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying asset_url and receipt_url to the 'published something' case and by implying fail_reason accompanies 'failed'. It does not add much for session_url, but the schema already describes it well.

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 ('Carry a claimed job's state back') and precisely defines the three reportable states: running, shipped, and failed. It clearly distinguishes this tool as the job-state reporting mechanism, separate from siblings like pick_up_job or ship_move.

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 explicitly states WHEN to call the tool ('at each of those moments, unprompted') and provides a meaningful when-not ('drafted, staged and awaiting review are not shipped'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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