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

Discloses immutability of generated documents, automatic 83(b) execution under advance authorization, the supersession cascade triggered by editing a generated application, and the idempotency rule about retry keys. No contradiction with annotations: readOnlyHint=false matches the creation behavior, and destructiveHint=false is not contradicted because the supersession effect belongs to an editing flow rather than to this generation action itself.

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 carries information and the core concept is front-loaded, but roughly 300 words are packed into one unbroken paragraph blending five distinct topics: phase outputs, confirmation boundary, supersession, prerequisites, and idempotency. The density reduces scannability even though there is no wasted prose.

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 multi-phase document-generation tool with no output schema and only minimal boolean annotations, the description covers the critical operational facts: phase-dependent outputs, confirmation boundary, idempotency rule, prerequisite, and canonicality. It stops short of describing the return payload or failure behavior when formation status is outside ready/formed, which would be needed for a 5.

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 documents _corply_context ('Echo context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result'), but formationId has no schema description and the tool description never names either parameter. The description adds indirect meaning by framing the formation lifecycle the parameter refers to (status phases, checkpoint confirmation, context_engineering echoing), but the agent must infer how these map onto formationId and _corply_context.

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-resource pair ('immutable generation' of formation documents) and differentiates by phase: status 'ready' yields only the Certificate of Incorporation, while 'formed' yields Bylaws, RSPAs, an unsigned SS-4, and an automatic 83(b) Election. This clearly separates it from siblings like save_application, submit_for_formation, and sign_bundle based on what it produces and when.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-call conditions tied to formation status ('ready' vs 'formed') and explicitly carves out the automatic 83(b) retry that requires no new approval, while declaring 'confirm before creating immutable legal documents' for all other cases. It also names the prerequisite (authenticated active organization access) and instructs the agent to trust actual_tool_output rather than adding a state-recovery call.

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