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

Annotations already establish write/non-destructive semantics, and the description adds the key trait they do not convey: the edit is staged and gated on human approval rather than applied immediately. It still does not describe what the person sees on decline or how long a proposal persists.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the staging/approval condition is stated immediately with nothing to trim.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the action plus the approval-gating behavior. The 'inspected' wording hints at the read_context/find prerequisite documented in the schema, making it sufficient to call correctly.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the correct baseline here.

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 and resource ('stages ... passage edits') plus a scope qualifier ('inspected'), and the phrase 'before application' implicitly separates it from the direct-apply sibling. It stops short of naming document.apply_edits, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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 a usable selection condition: use this when the person should approve or decline before the change is applied. It does not explicitly name the alternative (apply_edits) or state when not to use it, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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