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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds only modest behavioral context: 'Create or update' signals upsert semantics, and 'stable /r/{slug}/' suggests a persistent URL. However, it does not disclose details like authorization requirements, side effects on existing content, or behavior when called repeatedly, beyond what annotations imply.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the primary action and resource. It is concise with no filler or repetition, effectively conveying the tool's essence without wasting words.

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?

Given the tool complexity (6 parameters, 2 with enums) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides the core business context but relies heavily on the schema to fill in parameter interactions. It explains the purpose and URL structure sufficiently, and the schema covers parameter semantics, so no critical gaps exist for a tool of this scope. A slightly richer description (e.g., typical use case) would earn a 5.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter explanations (e.g., slug, revisionMode, access). The description adds the URL pattern /r/{slug}/ which complements the slug parameter, but overall it does not materially add meaning beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage without going further.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create or update a stable /r/{slug}/ report projection of a Handover revision.' It identifies the resource (Handover revision), the output (stable report projection), and the URL format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like handover.export or handover.publication by focusing on creating/updating a persistent report view.

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 description implicitly conveys that this tool is for publishing a handover as a report but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. For example, it does not compare this to handover.export or other publication-related tools. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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