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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key behavioral facts: what each decision triggers downstream (executes next cycle / keep / never pitch again) and the authentication requirement ('Requires the editor key'). It does not state reversibility, idempotency, or what a repeated call does, which is the remaining gap.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then decision semantics, then the guardrail. 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?

For a mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the guardrail, the auth prerequisite, and decision consequences. It omits what the call returns and whether a prior decision can be revised, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by defining the semantics of the `decision` enum values (which the raw enum does not) and by surfacing the undocumented `key` parameter as a requirement. `id` and `note` are already covered by schema descriptions.

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 (record a decision) plus the resource (one editor card) and enumerates all three decision outcomes with their meaning. An agent can distinguish it from editor_log and editor_pending 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?

Gives an explicit precondition (only when the user has explicitly decided) and an explicit exclusion (never infer a decision), which is exactly the routing guidance needed versus sibling tools.

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