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 does add a valuable precondition — edits must occur pre-approval — but is silent on whether the edit is rejected after approval, whether the worker is notified, whether 'reason' is required, or about permissions. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted wording. It is efficient, though the brevity is close to under-specification given the tool's mutation semantics.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and only 25% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified: partial-update behaviour, validation failure modes, and post-approval behaviour are all absent. The presence of an output schema offsets some of this, but not enough.

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 only 25% (only 'reason' is documented), so the description must compensate. It maps 'subject' and 'words' to the editable fields, which adds some meaning beyond the schema, but never clarifies that only recap_id is required, that body/subject are optional partial updates, or what the length limits imply.

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 ('Change the subject or words of a recap draft') and adds a lifecycle constraint ('before the worker approves it'). This distinguishes it from visits_draftRecap and visits_approveRecap, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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 clause 'before the worker approves it' implies the correct window for use, which is real guidance. However, it never states alternatives (e.g. that approval is a separate call) or what happens if the recap has already been approved, so the agent must infer the routing.

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