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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It reveals important behavioral traits: requires 'act' scope, reports are not optional, only report true ships, and the response includes a receipt_url when applicable. This goes beyond what annotations 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 slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence adds critical context—timing, exclusions, auth, parameters, and response. It is well-structured with a clear WHEN clause and effective front-loading of the primary action.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers when to call, what counts as shipped vs. not, which sibling to use for declined moves, the required scope, optional parameter behavior, and response contents. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the source for move_id ('from list_feed') and the condition for asset_url ('when the move published a live asset'), which clarifies usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a growth move shipped' and explicitly ties it to an existing action ('the same action as Ship in the Feed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skip_move and undo_move, which handle different outcomes.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call it the moment the founder confirms the work is actually live, with their go and never on your own.' It also names the alternative for a different scenario: 'a move the founder turned down goes to skip_move with the real reason.' This gives clear decision criteria.

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