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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the output is a pending human-review card, that it binds to the assistant's saved message_number and current Brief base_revision, how retries are identified, and who can accept it. The write behavior is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true is reinforced by the retry sentence. It does not describe what happens after acceptance or rejection, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 compact sentences front-load the action and then cover retry identity and acceptance authorization; there is little wasted wording. The binding sentence is somewhat dense, but the structure is clear and the key behavior comes first.

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 write tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core creation behavior, retry identity, and acceptance authorization. It still does not explain optional supports_action_id or replaces_decision_id, nor how this proposal relates to the many sibling decision tools, so an agent may need extra inference before calling it 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema for message_number ('own saved'), base_revision ('current Brief'), and client_id/body retry identity, which is useful. With schema coverage at 57%, it leaves room_id, supports_action_id, replaces_decision_id, and decision_text length/role unexplained in the description, so it only partially compensates for the gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('pending human-review card'), and names the binding fields, so the action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the many sibling proposal/decision tools (e.g., propose_relay_decision or purpose_propose_decision), leaving some selection ambiguity.

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?

It gives retry semantics with client_id and body and states acceptance requires a canonical human controller or confirmed phone, which implies use for human-review decisions. However, it never says when to choose this over sibling tools such as propose_relay_decision, purpose_propose_decision, or open_decision, so alternatives must be inferred.

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