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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says what happens on a hash mismatch (error, boolean, exception), whether the call mutates any state, or whether agent_token/session_id are required for authorization, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of a failed check.

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 short sentences with the action and precondition front-loaded and no filler. The only cost is the second sentence pointing at a tool name that does not appear among the siblings, which is mildly disorienting rather than verbose.

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?

A five-parameter, one-required tool with no annotations and no output schema needs far more than two sentences. The description omits mismatch behavior, return shape, and the meaning of three parameters, so an agent cannot call it reliably without guessing.

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% across five parameters, and the description only illuminates base_hash. The roles of path, current_hash, session_id, and agent_token are entirely undocumented, so half the surface area has no meaning anywhere.

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 ('Check a claimed file') plus the exact condition ('still matches base_hash before writing'), which makes the optimistic-concurrency intent readable and separates it from file_claim/file_release. It stops short of a fully sibling-aware statement, since it references 'skv-edit check' rather than any tool in the sibling list.

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?

'before writing' implies the usage context, and 'Pair with skv-edit check' hints at a workflow, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to actual siblings such as file_claim or file_release. The agent must infer the sequencing itself.

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