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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful context (only the approved wording passes evaluate_commitment, plus the approval precondition). However, it never explains the destructive/retirement side implied by destructiveHint and the RETIRED status value, nor how expectedRevision conflicts are handled. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but leaves the mutation semantics thin.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the relational constraint and the exclusion. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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. But for a mutation tool flagged destructiveHint=true with a RETIRED status and an optimistic-concurrency parameter, the description omits overwrite/retirement behavior and revision handling, leaving the agent partially informed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, yet it only loosely gestures at kind ('feature or timeline') and statement ('the statement'). deskId, name, status and expectedRevision receive no explanation at all, including the concurrency meaning of expectedRevision.

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 (store) and resource (a feature or timeline statement), which cleanly separates it from sibling savers like save_approved_answer, save_escalation_limit and save_refund_rule. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a real precondition ('the user has explicitly approved') and an exclusion ('Do not save a date or a feature the user did not approve'). It does not name an alternative tool or explain what to do instead, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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