Accept vault admin control (high sensitivity)

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is declared. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: no transaction is signed locally, and confirmPhrase must equal the tool name when DFM_MCP_CONFIRM_REQUIRED=1. It does not describe the rejection behavior's error surface or auth requirements further, but the added context is meaningful.

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 critical 'NOT AVAILABLE YET' warning is front-loaded, and every remaining sentence carries distinct information (reconciliation scope, no local signing, confirmPhrase rule). It is terse and structured, with no filler.

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 high-sensitivity mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential operational facts: it is a reconciliation-only path, no local signing, and the confirmation protocol. The main residual gap is the undocumented required vault parameter, but the schema pattern gives format guidance.

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 33% (only confirmPhrase is documented). The description mentions landedSignature's role and the exact confirmPhrase value, partially compensating. However, the required 'vault' parameter is left without any description or format hint beyond the schema pattern, so the description does not fully cover the gap.

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 states a specific operation: reconciling an already-landed admin acceptance via landedSignature, and explicitly contrasts this with the unavailable new-acceptance path. It clearly differentiates from the sibling transfer_admin by scoping itself to reconciliation only. The purpose is understandable, though framed negatively ('NOT AVAILABLE YET') rather than as a positive statement of what it does.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not-to-use ('new acceptances are refused') and an implied when-to-use (reconcile an already-landed acceptance). This is strong routing guidance for a niche tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool path for landing a new acceptance, which would have made it a 5.

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