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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; the description adds useful context beyond that by emphasizing 'LIVE write mode' and 'explicit caller acknowledgement.' It also clarifies that this is the same endpoint as submit but a different mode, which is valuable operational detail. No contradiction with annotations.

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, each earning its place: prerequisite, purpose, and operational caution. The hard requirement is front-loaded with 'REQUIRES,' and there is no filler.

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 destructive mutation tool with strong annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential invocation context: login prerequisite, update mode, live write nature, and caller confirmation. It does not describe return behavior, but no output schema exists and that is not critical for deciding to call or invoking it.

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 description coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already detailed (e.g., confirm must be true, receipt_no comes from workplace_save). The description adds only mild extra meaning by tying account_link_id to the prior login call, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('already-submitted work24 subsidy application'), and further distinguishes itself from submit by naming prssMode=UPDT and 'Same endpoint as submit, different mode.' This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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?

It clearly establishes the mandatory precondition (prior work24__auth__npki_session__login with the same account_link_id) and limits the action to already-submitted applications. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives like submit/delete/withdraw, but the context is clear.

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