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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: conflicting revisions fail without overwriting (optimistic concurrency) and an identical retry returns the saved claim. It stops short of noting any permission/auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the approval precondition and the definition before the mechanics. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 5-param mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical concerns an agent needs: approval gate, status transitions, update prerequisites, and conflict/retry behavior. It omits only minor schema-level details like brandId semantics and statement limits, which the schema itself bounds.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains status semantics (RETIRED on withdrawal), that claimId and expectedRevision are required for updates, and where expectedRevision comes from. brandId and the statement length limit (12000) remain undocumented, leaving a minor gap.

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+resource ('Store or revise a claim') and goes further to define what a claim is and is not ('language the brand may say... not an offer and not proof'), cleanly separating it from siblings like save_offer and save_proof. An agent can distinguish this tool from every sibling without opening a schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('only after the user approves the exact statement'), names the status for withdrawal ('Use status RETIRED when the user withdraws a claim'), and states the update requirements including the source of expectedRevision ('from get_brand_guide'). This is when/when-not plus an alternative source, with nothing left to inference.

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