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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool flips action status to 'rejected' with metadata.skipReason and that the next-move generator reads skip reasons to avoid similar suggestions. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what would be inferred from the schema, though it omits details like reversibility or permissions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and the second explains the impact (brain learning). Each sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's effect (flipping action status, capturing reason) and how it integrates with the next-move generator. It could mention the return value or confirmation message, but the behavioral description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 explaining the role of the 'reason' parameter: it helps the brain learn which moves to avoid. This goes beyond the schema's description, which only says 'Why the founder is skipping this.' The description also clarifies the outcome (flip to rejected with metadata.skipReason).

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 specific verb 'rejects' and resource 'next-move recommendation', clearly distinguishing from siblings like approve or execute. It states exactly what the tool does: preventing a recommendation from being executed while capturing a skip reason.

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 explains when to use: when a founder rejects a recommendation. It provides context by stating the purpose (capturing reason for brain to learn) and effect on future suggestions. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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