set_retained_bleed_alignment_mode_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the consequence of each mode (which choices block later automatic correction and which resets it), a real behavioral trait. It does not address permissions, the meaning of the 'window', the placement lock, or reversibility of the overall operation.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the mode-behavior detail following. Little waste, though the trailing whitespace/newline suggests slightly rough formatting rather than a structure problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, a description that only elaborates the mode enum leaves the agent guessing about the decision/window/project scoping needed to call the tool correctly.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of the three mode values but leaves decision_id, project_path, track_id, start_sec, end_sec, and override_placement_lock completely undocumented, so most parameters carry no meaning beyond their bare names.

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 verb ('Save') and a resource ('a timing choice for an applied decision or a proposal'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never uses the domain terms 'retained bleed' or 'alignment' from the tool name, so an agent must infer that 'timing choice' means the alignment mode. The purpose is implied rather than sharply defined.

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 second sentence explains what each mode value does ('manual and declined prevent later automatic correction; auto resets'), which implicitly guides value selection. But it gives no when-to-use versus the sibling align_retained_bleed_tool or any other alternative, so usage context is only implied.

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