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

Annotations only cover the safety triad (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the package stages a replacement and/or cliff buyback, the departure is only proposed at this step, and child actions with separate approvals and payment gates materialize after completion. The idempotency/confirmation paragraphs are generic filler, but the staged-async-pipeline disclosure is real value.

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?

Purpose and flow are front-loaded, but the Canonicality/Idempotency/Confirmation-boundary paragraphs are generic policy boilerplate that could apply to nearly any tool, and the confirmation clause enumerates categories ('read, reversible save, explicit fact/evidence record...') that don't match this write tool. 'Every prerequisite stated above' is pure waste.

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 complex nested-parameter write tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the high-level pipeline and idempotency expectations but omits anything about the required kinds/enums, the eligibilityConfirmed const, identifier fields, or what the returned package contains. Partial coverage only.

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% across 6 parameters, including nested objects with required enums (kind: remove_director/resign_officer, etc.) and fields like eligibilityConfirmed, allocationId, shareCount, and the three idempotencyKeys. The description only gestures at 'replacement' and 'cliff buyback', leaving the overwhelming majority of parameter meaning undocumented anywhere.

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 states a concrete verb+resource ('Prepare one visible departure package') and names the bundled components ('staged replacement and/or eligible cliff buyback'), which distinguishes it from the single-purpose siblings propose_governed_departure / propose_governed_replacement / propose_cliff_repurchase. However it never explicitly says it is the packaging/aggregate variant of those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 only when-to-use signal is the flow note that 'the departure is proposed now; child actions are created only after it completes', which is behavioral rather than selection guidance. No alternatives are named, and the prerequisite sentence ('plus every prerequisite stated above') is circular boilerplate pointing at text that does not exist.

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