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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call is blocking ('wait for their reply') and ends the current turn, which is critical behavioral context. It also states the project scoping ('acts only on the explicit project_id') and that it returns project identity, giving a clear picture of side effects and interaction.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the critical scoping note and the turn-ending behavior. No filler words; every clause adds value. The structure makes the key constraints immediately visible.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: scope, action, blocking behavior, and usage context. The schema covers project_id. It doesn't mention timeout or response format, but those are not necessary given the simple interactive nature. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 50% – only project_id has a description, which is detailed. The question parameter has no schema description, but the tool description says 'Ask the user a specific question', which directly maps to the question field. However, it doesn't elaborate on question format or constraints, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema detail.

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 clearly states the verb 'ask' and the resource 'user', and it distinguishes this tool from all editing siblings by emphasizing it's the only one that interacts with the user. The phrase 'Use whenever a material choice genuinely belongs to the user' further clarifies the exact purpose.

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 provides a clear condition for use ('whenever a material choice genuinely belongs to the user') and implicitly advises against using it when the decision is not the user's. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives, but no sibling offers this capability, so the guidance is sufficient.

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