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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the genuinely useful detail that both owners must confirm, which is behavioral context not present in structured fields. It says nothing about what happens to the root's existing parent, whether the attach is reversible, or how the confirmation is obtained, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence in three tight clauses with no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a mutating tool, but nothing written is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with 4 parameters at 25% coverage and a mandatory-sounding two-party confirmation flow that is not described, an agent lacks what it needs to actually construct a call. The definition is complete on intent and thin on execution.

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 only 25% — root, parent, and confirmation_id carry no descriptions, while idempotency_key is fully documented in the schema. The phrase 'attach an independent root under a node' implicitly maps root and parent, and 'both owners confirm' hints at confirmation_id, but the mechanics of obtaining or passing a confirmation_id (which is nullable with a null default despite the confirm requirement) are left unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Attach an independent root under a node'), which is enough to separate it from create_child_tenant and move_tenant in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating what an 'independent root' is, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'People only' is a real usage constraint that tells the agent this tool is not for autonomous invocation, and 'both owners confirm' signals a prerequisite. However, it never says what an agent should do instead (e.g. escalate via agent_escalate_to_human or request_human_review), and no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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