Keep or skip a Rush card

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real domain behavior: 'keep' materializes a new artifact (a reel), and 'skip' releases a hold against the daily allowance — a quota side effect the annotations do not convey. It does not state whether a decision is reversible or what happens on a duplicate/already-resolved card, so it is not fully transparent.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core decision semantics are front-loaded before the workflow note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, both outcomes, and the upstream feed relationship; the workspace default is handled by the schema. Missing only edge behavior (idempotency/re-resolution, error outcomes), which keeps it from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: itemId, decision (with enum), and workspaceId are all documented in the schema, including the keep/skip semantics. The description only restates the same keep/skip behavior in prose, adding no format or fallback detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Decide a card that has been dealt') and names both outcome branches with their consequences ('keep' → reel, 'skip' → frees the hold). It also explicitly ties itself to the sibling get_rush_feed ('Every card from get_rush_feed should end up here'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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 second sentence gives a clear usage condition: every card returned by get_rush_feed is expected to pass through this tool, which effectively defines the when and the upstream prerequisite. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. cards already resolved, or whether a decision is final and re-decidable), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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