Save a project choice

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

Annotations only flag readOnly=false and destructive=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing consent requirement, the projects:write permission, the upsert/replacement semantics ('a later choice ... replaces the earlier one'), and the deferred-judgment behavior across scans. This is exactly the added context the lower annotation bar rewards.

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-loads the core action and consent requirement, then the two enum branches, then the replacement/permission caveats. Dense but every clause carries distinct meaning; a couple of long sentences could be split for readability.

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 6-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, mode selection, auth, consent, and lifecycle effects. It omits only return/response expectations and the identity of projectPid/assessmentPid, minor gaps given no output schema is declared.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the burden, and it does for most params: it defines both enum values of choice, ties themeId to the topic, and marks controlId as required only for accept_gap, while reason is implied by 'in the person's own words'. projectPid and assessmentPid are not explained, so it falls just short of complete.

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 verb+resource ('Save a developer choice on the project') and immediately scopes it as an upsert of a decision record, which clearly separates it from the read-only sibling air_list_project_decisions. An agent knows exactly what this tool does 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?

Explicitly routes between the two enum modes: not_applicable when the whole topic does not apply, accept_gap when the topic applies but a missing control is accepted (with controlId required). It also names the precondition 'Ask them first' and the replacement rule for repeat choices, leaving nothing to inference.

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