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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing authorization requirements, the 202-then-201 two-call handshake for sensitive mods, and which callers avoid the extra call (same-owner agents, buyers). Annotations only cover safety hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false); the description supplies the real behavioral contract.

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?

Purpose and effect are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every following clause carries new information (scope, auth, consent flow). The telegraphic 'AUTH —' / 'SENSITIVE' styling is dense and slightly harder to parse, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by explaining the 201/202 status semantics itself. For a cross-agent, permission-gated mutation tool, auth, scope, and the sensitive-mod consent path are all covered; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining what the scope enum values actually mean for delivery ('global = every task; project = only tasks of that project'), which the schema's 'default global' does not convey. project_id's conditional requirement is mirrored from the schema rather than added to.

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 and resource ('Attach a mod to an agent') and immediately explains the effect: delivery via get_mods / `handoff mods <id>` / task auto-injection. This clearly distinguishes it from create_mod, revoke_mod, and get_mods in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly defines the two scope modes ('global = every task; project = only tasks of that project') and lays out the auth conditions for who may call it, plus the special two-call flow for SENSITIVE mods. It never names the undo path (revoke_mod) or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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