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

Annotations only declare the generic readOnly=false / destructive=false profile, and the description adds the important specifics: append-only with 'no edit and no delete,' and 'the write is verified before VERIFIED is returned.' It also discloses that doubt/telling wording is preserved as written and marked in the response, which an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and most sentences carry distinct information (scope, wording handling, verification, append-only, length discipline). The middle sentence about doubt wording is dense and takes a second pass to parse, costing some crispness.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return behavior — the response marks doubt/telling lines and VERIFIED is returned after write verification. Combined with the length guidance and the append-only constraint, an agent has enough to call this correctly without further context.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: each field should be 'one or two sentences,' about 80 words total, and a field carrying detail elsewhere should end with a pointer to the dated note. The only blemish is 'All four fields are required' when the schema's required list has five names (the four content fields plus home_path), which is slightly imprecise.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Append one entry to this home's REJECTIONS list' — and defines an entry as 'a path considered or tried and dropped, and why.' That distinguishes it in substance from the capture_correction/decision/definition siblings, though it never names them 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?

It sets a clear condition for use (something considered or tried and then dropped) and routes long-form content elsewhere: 'The detail of a sitting lives in its dated note; a field with detail there ends with a pointer to it,' which implies save_note rather than an expanded entry here. It stops short of naming capture_decision or capture_correction as the alternative when the item wasn't dropped.

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