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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this is an append-only event, that it appends standing.committed, and that partial fields overlay rather than PATCH. It does not cover error cases or idempotency, but the core side-effect semantics are transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded and each sentence adds useful information about event type, promotion behavior, and overlay semantics.

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 high parameter count and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the operation, the event appended, and the two main invocation modes. It could mention prerequisites such as an existing draft or contrast with process_run_standing_draft, but the output schema exists and the core call contract is 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?

The input schema already covers all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful group-level semantics: omitting every field promotes the latest draft, and partial fields overlay the projection. This clarifies how the parameters collectively behave beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('Commit standing') and a specific resource ('run stream'), and identifies the exact event appended ('standing.committed'). It is clear enough to be distinguished from generic event tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling process_run_standing_draft.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: omit every field to promote the latest draft, and partial fields overlay the projection rather than patching a row. It provides clear context for how to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives.

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