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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuinely important behavior — the call is refused unless the user has explicitly confirmed — which is real value. But it says nothing about what installation changes, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on a partially-satisfied confirmation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the gating condition; nothing is padded. The telegraphic "otherwise refused" is slightly cryptic but does not waste space.

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?

The gating protocol is covered, but for a no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool the definition omits the effect of the operation, failure modes beyond refusal, and the role of two of its four parameters. It is adequate to avoid an obvious misuse but not complete enough to call confidently.

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 0% across four parameters. The description explains only user_confirmed (and implies the turn-based evidence protocol), leaving user_quote and user_said_install completely undefined in both schema and prose — an agent cannot tell whether these are evidence artifacts it must populate or optional audit fields. Only cube_id is self-evident.

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?

"Install a cube" names a verb and resource, but it largely restates the tool name and does not explain what installing a cube actually does (vs. cube_create or cube_consent, both present in the sibling list). An agent still has to guess at the semantic difference between creating, consenting to, and installing a cube.

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 conditional "user_confirmed=true ONLY after the user's explicit yes in this turn" gives a concrete precondition, and "call turn(user_message) first" names a prerequisite step. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer cube_install over cube_create or cube_consent, so tool selection among siblings is left implicit.

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