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

Despite sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description goes well beyond them. It discloses that the action resolves the gap in one place, stops re-proposal on the Feed, improves ranking with the reason, and is idempotent (leaves shipped/archived gaps untouched). This gives the agent a rich behavioral model without relying on annotations.

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 somewhat long but every sentence contributes specific information: purpose, comparison to skip_move, feed/ranking effects, pricing/scope, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, though could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the action, effects, idempotency, and prerequisites. It doesn't describe the return value, but since no output schema exists, this is less critical. It also doesn't explicitly discuss reversibility (undo_move exists as sibling), which is a minor gap given the tool's impact.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat basic meanings. However, it adds value by explaining that the reason 'improves what gets ranked next' and reinforces that prompt_id and prompt_text together identify the gap, which goes beyond the schema's existing 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 clearly defines the action: 'Set aside one AI visibility (GEO) gap' with a specific resource ('a tracked question where rivals get named and this product does not'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling skip_move by saying 'The same verdict as skip_move, on the AI visibility surface', making the tool's unique scope unmistakable.

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?

It provides a clear condition for use ('the founder is not going to act on') and contrasts with skip_move by specifying this is for the AI visibility surface. It also states effects (stops re-proposed on feed, improves ranking) and requirements (free, requires 'act' scope, all plans). However, it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives like archive_move or undo_move, leaving some ambiguity about when not to use this over those.

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