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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 422-on-overflow rule with no truncation, the async return (id and number) and the exact shape of the later `next` event including verdict enums. The mutation workflow (change with id plus new fields, remove with delete true) is spelled out, consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, then the async answer contract in a tight block. Dense and information-rich, though the run-on constraint list could be split for readability.

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?

Covers creation limits, the update/delete path, and the asynchronous answer contract. Given an output schema exists, the description rightly avoids restating return structure but still explains the `next` event, which the output schema alone might not make clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents options, recommend, delete, and id. The description mostly restates those constraints (2-3 options, 40 chars, 160 chars) and adds the 422 consequence, which is behavioral rather than parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: putting a question on the call's Decision Board, with the rendered form (shown as #number with buttons). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like say, show, or send_data, which push content rather than solicit a decision.

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 description covers the create/change/delete modes and notes the person can answer by voice, which implies usage, but never says when to prefer decide over say or show. An agent must infer that this is the tool for soliciting a choice rather than merely broadcasting one.

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