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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the admin-token auth requirement, the refusal condition if the row is already measured, and the default behavior (now - 60s). This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and preconditions.

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?

Every sentence adds value: the purpose, use cases, auth, refusal condition, and parameter behavior. Although it starts with 'P93' which is cryptic, the rest is dense and efficient. No filler or redundant wording.

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 the action, conditions, auth, and parameter behavior. Since there is no output schema, it does not describe the return value or error behavior, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable. Overall, the tool is fully contextualized for an agent.

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 already has 100% coverage for all three parameters. The description adds the default behavior for dueAt and clarifies that proofId comes from elsewhere, but these are minor additions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's specific action: forcing a proof_ledger row's measurement_due_at into the past. It distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself an 'admin escape hatch' and explaining its role in the cron flow, which sets it apart from measurement or approval tools.

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 explicitly provides use cases: smoke testing the launch-to-measure chain and retrying stuck measurements. It also mentions the admin token gate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which keeps it just below full marks.

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