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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine lifecycle context (staged open → inspect → accept/reject/close) that annotations do not convey, but it never says what accepting actually destroys, whether it is reversible, or that a sibling (undo_agent_change) can roll it back.

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 sentence with no filler that front-loads the core action. It is slightly run-on because it compresses three phases (compare, decide, close) into one clause chain, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is routing: for a multi-action, destructive, 7-parameter tool in a crowded sibling set, the description should clarify the compare/compare_decide boundary and the consequence of accept.

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 100% with an action enum, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the privacy note on `document` and the retry semantics of `operation_id`. The description adds no syntax, format or default detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (compares) and resource (a complete alternative document) and outlines the full lifecycle (open, accept/reject, close), so an agent understands the operation. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling document.compare_decide, which appears to handle the decision side of a similar workflow.

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?

"when the person wants to review a rewrite" gives a usable trigger condition, which is more than nothing. But with ~28 siblings including compare_decide, show_changes and review_decide, the definition names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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