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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the org:admin auth requirement, that the work is queued rather than executed inline, that the worker records a 'manual' run, and that dream is skipped if tonight's report already exists. It omits rate limits or what happens on duplicate queuing, so not a 5.

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 action and permission in one line, then two compact mode definitions. Typography is dense and slightly cramped, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the mutation's trigger, auth, skip condition, and verification path. Adequate for a single-enum mutation, though a note on idempotency/queuing semantics would fully close the loop.

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% with an enum, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by defining what each enum value actually does at runtime (wiki-page gaps vs tonight's dream pass), which the raw enum values would not convey.

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+resource: 'Queue one manual pass of a glian for this org.' It also disambiguates its own two variants (curator vs dream), which no sibling tool covers, so an agent can identify it 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?

Explains when each mode applies ('curator: queue every subject missing a wiki page...', 'dream: run tonight's pass') and routes the agent to glian_status to check results. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a named competing sibling.

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