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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the confirm gate and the post-condition ('stops showing up and stops nudging'), clarifying this hides rather than deletes progress. However, it omits permissions required, reversibility/undo behavior, and what the preview response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with an em-dash elaboration; every clause adds information (action, scope, gate, effect) and nothing is wasted.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation this covers the core action and outcome, but with no annotations and no output schema the definition should say more about permissions, whether dismissal is reversible, and how the preview mode behaves beyond what the 'confirm' schema field already states.

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 coverage is 50%: 'confirm' is fully documented in the schema, but 'clientId' has no description anywhere. The description's 'a client's' and '(confirm-gated)' only vaguely gesture at both parameters and add no format or identification semantics to compensate for the undocumented clientId.

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 ('Close a client's onboarding checklist') and adds the crucial scope qualifier 'without finishing it', which separates it from siblings like mark_client_onboarding_step and get_client_onboarding. An agent can tell what this does 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?

The phrase 'without finishing it' implies the use case (abandon/stop an incomplete onboarding) and hints at the contrast with completion tools, but it never names an alternative or states when-not to use it. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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