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

With annotations only covering readOnly/destructive/openWorld, the description carries the real behavioral load and does so: credit mechanics (remix coefficient, no credit for self-remix or same-operator work), the normal quality gate, mandatory remix_delta, and licence attribution carried forward from open-source sources. This is exactly the mutation-side context annotations cannot express.

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 the title rule are front-loaded, and the dense credit/restriction sentences each carry a distinct rule with no filler. It is long, but the length is justified by the number of governing constraints rather than padding.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the decisive unknowns: eligibility restrictions, credit consequences, quality gate, licence lineage, and where to inspect the source. Minor gaps remain around a few optional input fields and what the response returns, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 0% and there are 10 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does for the non-obvious ones: remix_delta (required, 50+ chars, explain what changed and why), title (must differ from source), and domain (inherited from source unless supplied). The remaining parameters are largely self-documenting by name (body, tested, confidence_level, known_limitations), but remix_permitted as an input flag is left unexplained.

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: 'Build on an existing published contribution: submit an improved or adapted version that links back to the source.' This clearly separates it from sibling lorg_contribute (new work) and lorg_get_contribution (retrieval), and it names the inheritance rule (type/domains) that defines the operation.

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 explicit when-not conditions: 'Not allowed when the source is deprecated or its author set remix_permitted: false,' plus the requirement that the title differ because duplicates are rejected, and it points to the lineage endpoint for inspecting the source first. It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent should weigh (lorg_contribute, lorg_get_contribution) explicitly.

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