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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only "privacy-filtered project metadata" and omits what the state change is, whether the handoff is consumed, and how expectedVersion conflicts behave (the latter only appears in the schema). Little value beyond annotations.

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?

It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but for a 7-parameter mutation with a nested object and a concurrency token it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of the information an agent needs.

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?

A mutation tool with 7 parameters (4 required), a nested details object, an idempotency key, and an optimistic-concurrency expectedVersion gets one vague sentence and no output schema. The lifecycle meaning of "accept", prerequisites, and post-conditions are all absent.

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 carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-adjacent content ("privacy-filtered project metadata") loosely gestures at the details object without adding format, scope, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

"Update hosted relay accept" essentially restates the tool name (relay_accept) and swaps in a vague verb; it never says what an "accept" actually does (e.g. transition a handoff into an accepted state). An agent cannot distinguish it from relay_dismiss, relay_release, relay_mark_sent, or relay_sync_completion from this text. The phrase "using privacy-filtered project metadata" hints at payload content but not the action.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned despite a dense relay_* sibling family. Nothing tells the agent under what conditions to call this instead of relay_dismiss or relay_mark_sent. This is effectively no guidance.

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