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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the side effect that remaining questions may be regenerated and that a confirmation flag is mandatory. It does not, however, explain when regeneration is triggered or what happens to previously answered questions.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key action and its confirmation gate front-loaded. The parenthetical is dense but not wasteful; there is no padding to cut.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves the most consequential behavior vague: 'possibly regenerate the remaining questions' gives no condition, scope, or consequence for existing answers. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what it changes.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the confirmation precondition. The description restates the triple and the confirmation requirement without adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Record) and resource (an answer against a work session question) and names the identifying triple sessionId/questionId/answer. The 'work session' framing implicitly separates it from submit_onboarding_answer, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 prerequisite 'Requires confirmation: true to execute' is stated, which is useful context, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over submit_onboarding_answer or how it fits into the broader work-session flow (commit_work_session, get_work_session). Usage is only implied.

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