Prepare sourced follow-up

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: validation is structural, not a truth verdict; existing headings are required; person targets require identity confirmation; and results are bounded plans, not writes. This gives the agent a genuinely accurate mental model.

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?

Five dense sentences, each adding real value: scope, prerequisites, identity caveat, non-writing behavior, and follow-up workflow. Information is front-loaded and there is 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description is complete enough for safe and correct invocation. It covers preconditions, identity handling, output type, and post-invocation steps like verifying receipts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide key conceptual guidance: use stable record/revision IDs, compare against live hashes and exact source excerpts, and confirm identity for person targets. However, it does not meaningfully explain the richer nested fields like status, due_date, event_date, or previous_revision, leaving some semantics to the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('sourced actions, interactions, objectives and state revisions') and makes the output explicit: 'Returns bounded append_journal plans, never writes.' This clearly distinguishes it from writer tools like append_journal and readers like get_follow_up.

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 description gives clear preconditions: existing target history headings are required, person targets need identity confirmation, and homonyms should be clarified first. It also states when not to use it ('never writes') and instructs to apply generated plans with existing writers, though it does not name the specific sibling tools to use.

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