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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the scenario is immutably bound to a source version and that saving does not create an investment. However, it does not explain the destructiveHint=true annotation or the confirmation mechanism, leaving an important behavioral gap for a mutating 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, qualifies the object with 'source-version-bound immutable', and includes the key side-effect ('no investment is created'). Every element earns its place and there is no filler.

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 annotations and output schema, the description does not need to restate return values or simple safety hints, but it still omits workflow context: where confirmation tokens come from, whether an existing draft/scenario is replaced, and why destructiveHint=true is set. This is adequate but not complete for a 5-parameter tool in a large sibling family.

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 needed to compensate, but it only indirectly maps to expected_source_version ('source-version-bound') and confirmation_token ('Confirm'). It does nothing to explain idempotency_key, scenario_id, allocation semantics, inclusion, round amounts, or pool dilution, all of which are nontrivial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Confirm and save') and names the exact resource ('source-version-bound immutable scenario'), plus an explicit negative ('no investment is created') that separates it from close_investment and other sparkclose write operations. This is more than enough for an agent to identify what the tool does.

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?

The phrase 'Confirm and save' and 'no investment is created' imply it is the final save step in a scenario workflow and not the investment closing step, but no alternative tools or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions are named. An agent must infer the workflow placement from siblings and the confirmation_token parameter.

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