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

Annotations declare the safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: return value is request metadata rather than test results, the server does not execute commands, and completion is deferred to a later agent outcome. This prevents the agent from expecting synchronous results.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the key disambiguation (it is a record, not a run). Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by explaining what is returned (request metadata) and the async completion requirement. Safety is covered by annotations, and the parameter surface is fully described by the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (nodeIds, details, idempotencyKey usage) beyond what the schema already documents. Adequate but not enriching.

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 precise verb+resource ('Record a pending local-agent test request for selected graph nodes') and immediately disambiguates the misleading name by clarifying it does NOT actually run tests. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 clear operational context for use: it records a request, the hosted server does not run commands, and completion depends on a later agent outcome. This tells the agent this is an async request-creation step, but it names no explicit alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

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