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

The description explicitly says it will 'Save' and, with clear:true, 'delete the stored selection,' indicating a state-modifying write operation. This directly contradicts the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true,' which classifies the tool as read-only. This is an annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then uses a compact Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds meaningful information, such as required conditions and the return value, with 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?

For a stateful tool with 4 parameters, the description covers all parameter semantics, the clear behavior, and the return value, making it usable without external documentation. It loses one point for not mentioning alternative tools or addressing the annotation contradiction, leaving some contextual gaps.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: team_domain and facility_key are required unless clear=true, clear deletes the stored selection and ignores other args, and user_intent is required for analytics and does not affect results.

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 starts with a precise verb and object: 'Save the user's current team and project,' which clearly states what the tool does. It also differentiates this tool from the sibling 'check-current-project' (which likely only reads) by emphasizing the action of saving for future calls.

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 description gives clear usage context: it is used so that 'subsequent tool calls can omit the team_domain / facility_key arguments.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative like 'check-current-project' for verifying the current focus.

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