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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: existing room viewers may see additions, older pinned items and access controls remain unchanged, and it does not send invitations or create share links. This clarifies the non-destructive nature despite destructiveHint: true, and adds idempotency context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff, front-loaded with the primary action and condition. It efficiently conveys prerequisites, effects, and exclusions without 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?

The description covers prerequisites, effects, and what it doesn't do, but lacks parameter explanations, which is critical given 0% schema coverage. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter semantics, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for correct invocation.

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 the description does not explain any parameters (close_id, expected_version, payload, project_id, idempotency_key, confirmation_token). It only hints at versions and confirmation but does not clarify their meaning, required format, or relationships, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the action (add exact approved report revisions) to a specific resource (reviewed SparkRoom) with a condition (after confirmation). It distinguishes from generic add_documents by specifying 'reviewed' and 'exact approved and published report revisions', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It specifies when to use: after confirmation, requires current close and room versions plus Growth access. It also clarifies what it does not do (send invitation or create share link), implying alternatives exist. While it doesn't name explicit alternative tools, the conditions and exclusions provide clear usage guidance.

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