Skip step 4 or 6 with a reason

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the reason appears in the report — but does not say whether the skip persists, can be undone, or how it affects a running workflow, and there is a mild tension between 'skip' and readOnlyHint that is left unresolved.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the hard constraint front-loaded before the secondary detail about the reason appearing in the report.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the essentials are there, but the agent cannot predict the outcome of the call (does it return a confirmation, change workflow_status, or require a running analysis?) and could use a note on the reason's expected length.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it labels the enum values (4 = power, 6 = base rates) and constrains the reason parameter as short and reported downstream. It still does not indicate a length limit or expected reason format.

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 specific action (skip a step) with a concrete constraint (only steps 4 and 6) and names what those steps are (power, base rates). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like power_analysis or base_rate_check, though the description never says so 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 exclusion is implicit: 'Only steps 4 and 6 can be skipped' tells the agent what is not allowed, but there is no statement of when skipping is appropriate versus running power_analysis or base_rate_check instead, nor any prerequisite about the workflow state.

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