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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond the annotations by disclosing the persistence model: the server keeps 'only bounded metadata and an attested outcome,' telling the agent what footprint the call leaves.

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 the action front-loaded and the data-handling caveat trailing. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Annotations and a fully documented schema carry most of the load, so the short description is not fatal. However, for a mutation that triggers an external local agent it omits execution semantics an agent would want: whether the refresh is synchronous or async, and what the attested outcome looks like on return, which is not covered by an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the idempotencyKey retry contract and expectedVersion conflict semantics. The description only loosely reinforces the bounded-metadata concept (the details object) and adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (refresh) and resource (local change review), and names the actor (the connected local agent) that performs it. It is distinguishable in nature from siblings like create_local_change_review or get_change_review, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against the obvious siblings (create_local_change_review, get_change_review, list_change_reviews). An agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the verb in the name.

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