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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true), it discloses required entitlement level (Startup or higher), dual read/write consent, idempotency key stability, and exact-intent confirmation. This adds materially useful safety and concurrency context for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; prerequisites and revision handling are stated efficiently and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the nested schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it requires, and how to avoid stale writes. Return values are handled by the output schema, so no further explanation is needed.

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 compensates by naming the key payload fields (revenue, expenses, cash, headcount), the idempotency key, confirmation token, and expected revision. It omits any mention of project_id, so it does not fully cover all four parameters.

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 states a precise verb (Save) and resource (founder-declared revenue, expenses, cash and headcount) scoped to the current close revision, so the agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like save_report or start_close without opening the 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?

It gives clear context: read current state first and use its current revision when changing an existing record, plus prerequisite consent and confirmation requirements. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives, but the operational guidance is strong.

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