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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety basics are covered. The description adds only that metadata is 'privacy-filtered', without explaining the mutation's effect, what the 'sent' transition means, or any auth/versioning implications. Beyond the annotations, almost no behavioral value is added.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is a byproduct of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 mutation tool with a nested object, seven parameters, four required fields including an optimistic-concurrency version and idempotency key, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the effect of the operation, conflict/retry behavior context, and any notion of what success implies.

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 projectId, handoffId, idempotencyKey, expectedVersion and the bounded details object. The description contributes nothing param-specific. Baseline 3 applies 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 largely restates the tool name ('Update hosted relay mark sent'), offering only the phrase 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' as new content. It does not clarify what the 'mark sent' state actually represents or how it differs from siblings like relay_sync_completion or relay_accept. This reads close to a tautology of the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. With eight relay_* siblings that could plausibly overlap (relay_accept, relay_release, relay_sync_completion), the absence of any routing hint leaves the agent to guess.

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