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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral details: refusal of skipped/backward steps with no write, stamping of date/note into history, and the side effect of freeing a free-tier slot when expiring a finished engagement. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds crucial constraints and side effects. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main behavior (one-step transitions, refusal conditions, side effect) and integrates with the annotations. It does not mention return values or error handling, but these are minor for this operation. Overall, an agent has enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (date, status, agreement have descriptions; note does not). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces that status must move sequentially, but that is behavioral, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (move one agreement one step), the specific sequence of statuses (draft, sent, signed, expired), and distinguishes it from other agreement tools by focusing on status transition. The title reinforces this, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 intended use is implied by the description (transition an agreement through its lifecycle), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like agreement_create or agreement_get. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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