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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the numbers cannot be restated, the server authorizes its own projection, a stale expected_version causes a refusal rather than silent authorization, and it returns a run receipt. This is exactly the kind of safety and concurrency semantics annotations can't convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and result, then quotes an example, then the concurrency rationale, then the human-approval prerequisite. Dense but every clause carries information; the human-approval sentence at the end could be earlier, but the ordering still works.

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?

No output schema, so the description correctly states the return ('run receipt with its new status'). Covers all required behavior: prerequisite, concurrency guard, immutability of inputs, and return value. Complete for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it gives a concrete example object, explains that the numbers are server-stored and not user-restatable, and tells the agent to pass expected_version from get_run. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare JSON Schema, which only provides types and format constraints.

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 (authorizes) and resource (a held run) and immediately clarifies the semantics: it starts the run and uses server-stored numbers. Distinguished from siblings start_run, cancel_run, and get_run by the 'held run' framing and the authorization intent.

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?

Explicitly says 'Only call this after a person has seen the projection and agreed to it', which is a clear prerequisite. It also directs to pass expected_version 'from the get_run that showed you the projection', routing the agent to the right sibling and sequencing. No ambiguity about when to use it.

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