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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explains the held-first-call confirmation_token mechanism, that the application goes only after agreement, and that a sent application cannot be recalled. This is more than the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations alone 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?

Front-loads the action, then explains the confirmation flow and irreversibility. A bit repetitive ('the application goes only when the same call comes back with that token after the person agrees' restates the earlier sentence), but overall tight and well-organized.

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 a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the action, the two-step token flow, the revision semantics, and the irreversible outcome. No output schema means no need to describe returns.

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 parameter descriptions are already provided. The description adds meaning to confirmation_token ('from a held answer, sent with exactly the same other inputs') and reinforces that expected_revision is the revision they reviewed, but this largely echoes the schema.

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 action on a clear resource: sending an application in the person's name. However, the title 'Send an application in the person's name' is nearly identical, and it does not distinguish from siblings like prepare_application or log_outside_application. Still, the verb+resource and the two-step confirmation flow make the purpose clear.

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?

Gives clear context: 'For a clear instruction about one role ("send it") once the materials have been reviewed.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the two-step flow and the condition for the second call are well specified.

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