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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond by disclosing flag-controlled real vs NOOP execution, durable workflow via @pcc/workflow, idempotent replay semantics, and exactly-once reputation deltas. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs.

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?

Four sentences front-load the core action and outcome, then cover flag behavior and idempotency. Every sentence carries relevant information, though some tightening is possible.

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 covers execution semantics, environment flags, and idempotency well. It stops short of describing the return value (e.g., run id or status), which would be useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema (id with status precondition, idempotencyKey with length cap). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; 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+resource (commit a proposed composition) and describes downstream effects (drives DAG, records reputation outcomes, finalizes reputation). It implicitly distinguishes from propose_composition but never names it as an alternative in the description itself.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. 'Commit a proposed composition' implies the context but does not state prerequisites (e.g., must be proposed and not expired), nor does it mention when not to use or what alternative tools exist.

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