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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false; the description adds real context by scoping the write to "saves a new draft, creates no seats." It does not explain what happens on a revision/timestamp mismatch (the role of expectedDraftRevision/expectedUpdatedAt), which is the main behavioral risk for a non-idempotent tool.

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 lines, front-loaded with the effect and the trigger before the example. The example carries real informational weight rather than restating the schema, though it is somewhat long relative to the surrounding prose.

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?

The tool is a concurrent-sensitive mutation with nested objects and no output schema, yet nothing says what is returned (new draft revision? plain ack?) or what a stale expectedDraftRevision produces. Adequate to invoke correctly, incomplete for predicting the outcome.

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 baseline is 3; the worked example adds value by showing the required fields assembled together and demonstrating the per-category evidence/confirmFields pattern in practice. It stops short of explaining semantics like why expectedUpdatedAt differs from expectedDraftRevision.

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 ("Record the user's answers to the plan's open questions") plus the exact side effect ("saves a new draft, creates no seats"), which separates it from apply_reference_capacity_plan and save_reference_capacity_draft among the many reference-capacity siblings.

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?

"Use when: the user answered list_reference_capacity_questions" gives an explicit triggering condition and names the sibling that produces the input. It does not say when NOT to use it (e.g. versus save_reference_capacity_draft or apply_reference_capacity_plan), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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