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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does most of it: it flags the tool as a PUBLIC WRITE, discloses side effects (elevates or purges staging proposals), and previews the return payload including the action echo. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether a reject purge is reversible, which matters for a destructive branch.

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 bracketed write/pipeline tag is front-loaded, followed by one dense sentence covering the two branches and the return shape. Minor redundancy: the trailing 'Side effects' clause restates the elevation/purge behavior already given in the first sentence.

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 3-parameter, unambiguous write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, both branches, and the response envelope. The remaining gap is the destructive-path caveats (irreversibility, authorization) that an agent about to purge a proposal would want.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the schema's own action description already states 'accept to elevate or reject to purge'. The description adds one genuinely new detail, that an accepted item lands in the Vault as a v0.1 hypothesis, but adds nothing about the folder or id parameters. Baseline 3 with marginal added value.

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 (finalize/resolve) on a specific resource (staging candidate), and ties itself directly to its sibling sidecar_scan as 'INGEST PIPELINE STEP 2'. The two outcomes (accept → Vault as v0.1 hypothesis, reject → purge) are spelled out, so an agent can distinguish it from promote_hypothesis, discard_hypothesis, or vault_remove without reading any schema.

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 'INGEST PIPELINE STEP 2' framing plus 'Finalize staging candidate from sidecar_scan' makes the precondition clear: run sidecar_scan first, then resolve here. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at obvious alternatives (discard_hypothesis, vault_remove) for non-sidecar flows.

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