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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description needed to add mutation-specific context such as side effects, permission requirements, or the role of confirmToken. It adds none of that, offering only a scoping restriction and a redirect.

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?

Two short sentences with the most important information — don't call this — front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence partly duplicates the routing already implied by the first.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, this is far too thin; an agent forced to call it (if it is in fact the Kooga context) would have no guidance on actionId, confirmToken, or consequences. The redirect mitigates misuse but does not make the definition complete.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including an undocumented confirmToken and workspaceId, and the description explains none of them. The two enums (decision, reason) are self-describing, but actionId, confirmToken, and workspaceId carry no meaning anywhere in the definition.

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 never states what decideItem itself does; it only says the tool is 'For Kooga's views only' and redirects approve/dismiss behavior to siblings. An agent can infer it is an internal-only decision tool, but the actual operation remains undefined and 'Kooga' is unexplained.

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?

Strong negative routing: 'of no use to call otherwise' plus explicit alternatives (approveItem or dismissItem) tell the agent exactly when not to call it and what to call instead. The positive condition — when it *should* be used — is only vaguely given as 'Kooga's views', with no way for an agent to verify it qualifies.

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