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

Annotations only declare it as a non-read, non-destructive write, so the description carries real extra weight: it adds cost ('Free'), an auth requirement ('act' scope), a no-publish guarantee, and CAS semantics ('Revision starts a new attempt only when this transaction wins'). It stops short of describing failure/conflict behavior when the CAS check loses.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its enumerated decisions, then constraints. No filler; every clause (scope, cost, no-publish, CAS) carries 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?

For a complex 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers scope, cost, and concurrency but omits parameter-level meaning, conflict/error outcomes, and return shape. Adequate orientation, but not enough to call it confidently without opening the schema.

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 27% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It says nothing about move_id, job_id, note, asset_url, prepared_content, expected_move_state, or the two updated_at CAS fields; only the operation and attempt/CAS concepts get indirect mention. Two of the eleven params carry schema descriptions, leaving most undocumented.

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 ('Apply one explicit founder review decision') and then enumerates the four exact operations (revise, withdraw, adopt_legacy_result, correct_publication). This clearly separates it from siblings like accept_move, ship_move, skip_move, and undo_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 enumerated decisions effectively tell the agent which situation maps to this tool versus the other move tools, and 'This never publishes anything' sets a boundary. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. use ship_move to publish) or states when NOT to use it, so routing still requires inference.

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