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

Annotations mark it non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: safe retries preserve the same confirmation, prerequisite of authenticated active company access, the confirmation boundary requiring fresh explicit user confirmation, and that saved addresses need no Google lookup. This is rich disclosure of mutation/retry/authorization behavior.

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 opening sentence carries the essential instruction, but the description is bloated with generic boilerplate ('Canonicality: invokes the shared backend action...', 'Idempotency: obey the tool-specific retry key...', 'Confirmation boundary: ...') that reads as templated policy rather than tool-specific guidance, diluting the front-loaded signal.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned confirmationText and the required legal-name attestation and Change-something affordance. Prerequisites, retry semantics, and boundaries are covered. Only gap is the undocumented nested _corply_context parameter.

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 must carry the load, and it does: 'Send only formationId, reviewId, and confirmed:true; never reconstruct unchanged identity values,' which clarifies the intent of each required field and forbids populating stale identity data. It does not explain the nested _corply_context object, so not a full 5.

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 action: recording acceptance of the exact server-held version of own details after a founder confirms, and contrasts it with save_application for edits and excludes document signing and invited-identity approval. It distinguishes itself from siblings, though the core purpose is embedded in a dense conditional opening sentence rather than stated crisply up front.

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?

Explicit trigger (after founder chooses Confirm details or clearly confirms in text), explicit alternative path (Change something → save_application, then re-review), and explicit exclusions (does not sign documents, does not approve an invited founder's identity sharing). An agent knows when to call this versus alternatives.

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