Update cooperation request status

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the schema documents retry/revision semantics in depth. The description adds modest context: per-request revisioning, durable receipt, and the explicit disclaimer that receipt/consent/cancellation/acceptance are separate concerns and that a prepared worker contract is never altered. That is useful scope clarification but no new operational behavior beyond 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?

It is short at three sentences/fragments, but the leading sentence is obscure and the second sentence enumerates concepts without explaining the tool's action. Space is spent on abstractions rather than front-loading the concrete purpose.

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?

With a present output schema, full annotation coverage, and a fully documented parameter schema, the description need not explain returns or params. However, it omits the primary usage context (when to record a state transition versus reading or sending), leaving a noticeable gap for a mutation tool surrounded by similar siblings.

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% and the nested 'request' schema is exhaustively documented (state machine, terminal immutability, required reason fields, byte limits). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 name/title says 'Update cooperation request status', but the description reframes it as 'Record processing metadata with a per-request revision and durable receipt', which is abstract jargon rather than a concrete verb+resource. It states a scope boundary ('never changes a prepared worker contract') but never distinguishes itself from siblings like cooperation_request_status, cooperation_send, or cooperation_ack.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named among the many cooperation_* siblings. The only routing signal is a negative one ('This tool never changes a prepared worker contract'), which tells the agent what the tool is not rather than when to call it.

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