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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds crucial behavioral details: `verdict` is rejected with an error, confirmation requires human judgment, and the tool can only shape the assumption (not confirm it). No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: first sentence gives the core action, second paragraph adds a critical safety warning. Every sentence adds value, and the use of a red emoji draws attention to the most important constraint.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (create/update, no delete, verdict restriction), the description covers all main behaviors and constraints. It doesn't describe the return value, but no output schema exists; overall it's sufficiently complete for the agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does repeat id semantics already in the schema ('Omit to create, pass to update') and mentions a non-existent 'verdict' parameter, which is useful context but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for actual parameters.

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 clear, specific verb ('Create or update') and resource ('assumption under a project (L2 intent layer)'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. It explicitly mentions that verdict confirmation is handled elsewhere (judgment_submit), further differentiating its purpose.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: omit `id` to create, pass it to update, and states there is no delete tool. It also warns against passing `verdict` and directs the agent to judgment_submit for that concern. This is clear when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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