Acknowledge processed handoffs

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, and idempotentHint: true. The description adds the 'monotonically' behavior and the prerequisite of 'deliberate processing,' which are useful. However, it does not disclose what happens when advancing to a sequence already passed or any side effects beyond the cursor movement.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain return values, error behavior, or state changes. It only states the action, leaving out these aspects. The moderate complexity (3 required params) and lack of sibling differentiation make this description too sparse for full operational understanding.

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 and all parameters required, the description must compensate but does not. It only hints at 'consumer cursor' which loosely maps to the 'consumer' parameter; 'project' and 'through_sequence' remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('advance') and resource ('consumer cursor') with a clear qualifier ('monotonically after deliberate processing'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like frontispice_publish_handoff and frontispice_list_updates, which target different operations.

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 phrase 'after deliberate processing' implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. Given siblings like frontispice_mark_applied might seem similar, the absence of explicit differentiation or exclusion weakens this dimension.

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