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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds a consequence the annotations cannot convey: posting both pages triggers the referee panel to release devnet test money. That is valuable side-effect disclosure, though it does not say whether a post can be edited or retracted.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the consequence and the human-approval caution. No filler, though the semicolon-joined clause chain is dense.

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 six-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description covers purpose and payoff but not what the call returns or how to supply the five required arguments. An agent could not invoke this correctly from the definition alone.

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 six parameters, and the description only hints at role ('result or check page') and milestone. Required fields like attempt, project, and optional session get no meaning at all, leaving the agent to guess formats.

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 uses a specific verb ('Posts') and resource ('a result or a check page for a milestone'), so the action is clear. It does not differentiate this from close siblings like knos_milestone_submit or knos_task_submit, which an agent would need to choose between.

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 gives a real precondition ('ask your human first') and explains the downstream effect when both pages are in, which implies when this step belongs in the workflow. It never states when to use this instead of knos_milestone_submit or what happens if only one page is posted.

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