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

Beyond the spartan annotations (all false), the description reveals atomicity, rejection of scalar writes, evidence-first-call behavior, idempotency handling, and confidence in the returned actual_tool_output over state-recovery calls. It also frames the operation as a reversible save within the confirmation-boundary note, giving the agent useful behavioral context.

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 long and padded with generic template lines such as 'authenticated active organization access plus every prerequisite stated above' when no prerequisites were actually stated, and the broad 'Confirmation boundary' enumeration. The core purpose is front-loaded, but several sentences are wordy or self-referential, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 19-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the staging/promotion and evidence workflow, idempotency, and canonicality, which is substantial. Still, it omits the concrete return shape, when each confirmationKind is required, and the meaning of several validity/lifecycle parameters, leaving an agent to infer important call details.

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 coverage is only 53%, so the description must add semantic weight; it does clarify the retry contract ('identical source and validity inputs') and the meaning of evidence-gated candidates. But it leaves many parameters unexplained (provenance, trustLevel, effectiveFrom/To, itemLimit, questionLimit, _corply_context), so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation, 'atomically stage or promote one event occurrence's stable ID and mutable anchor fact,' which is not merely a restatement of the tool name and clearly distinguishes it from scalar fact writes. The phrase 'scalar writes are rejected' further differentiates it from sibling record_operating_fact and evidence 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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use this for every fact named by an event rule,' establishing the primary invocation context, and describes the evidence-gated retry flow with identical source and validity inputs. However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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