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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: passing proofId revises an existing record (upsert semantics) and claimId associates the proof with a saved claim. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens on an invalid claimId.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the exclusions and then the two optional-parameter behaviors. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with annotations, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and the semantics of the two non-obvious optional fields, leaving nothing critical for an agent to guess before invoking the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and largely meets it: title/source/summary are glossed, and claimId and proofId are given concrete operational meaning (link vs. revise). Only brandId is left unglossed, which is the sole gap in a 6-parameter 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 verb and resource ('Store evidence that backs one approved claim') and enumerates the payload ('a title, where it comes from, and what it shows'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like save_approved_claim and save_offer.

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 when-not guidance ('Proof does not approve a new claim, guarantee, discount, or offer'), which routes the agent away from this tool for those jobs, and states the condition for claimId linking. It stops short of naming the sibling tools explicitly, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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