Exclude or include a flood observation in a run's comparison

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real substance beyond them: the exclusion is logged with user and reason, nothing is overwritten, it is keyed on (run, layer, fid) so it survives a recompute, and figures update immediately via headline_after. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then permissions, durability, and the reason requirement in a logical order. Every sentence carries information, though the reason rule is restated in both description and schema, which is slightly redundant.

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 stateful toggle tool with an output schema, the description covers permissions, idempotency/durability semantics, and the immediate-figure-change behavior (headline_after). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the reason-required-to-exclude rule. The description reinforces that rule but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Exclude a flood observation from ONE run's comparison... or include it again'), clearly a toggle keyed to a single run. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_observation_comparison and set_comparison_tolerance without opening their schemas.

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 clear operational context: Editor (or above) permission is required, and it must be keyed to one run. It also instructs the agent to ASK the user for a reason rather than invent one, which is strong guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use vs siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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