Catalogue a Reviewed Suggestion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the write target, that the entry lands in a DISABLED/unimplemented state, that a human adapter is still required, that there is no network access, and that the operation is a no-op unless approve:true. It stops short of stating whether the write is idempotent, reversible, or what happens on an unknown suggestionId.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: precondition first, then side effect, then network/safety note, then the guard flag. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the effect, and the enablement guard, which is enough to call it correctly. Error behavior on an invalid suggestionId is the only notable omission.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'Requires approve:true; otherwise does nothing' largely restates the schema's 'Must be true to make any change.' It adds the no-op consequence slightly more explicitly but no format or validation detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource and the concrete side effect: the candidate is written into tools-registry.json as DISABLED and unimplemented. An agent can distinguish this from discover_providers (which finds candidates) without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Use only after the user approves a discovered candidate'), which simultaneously sets the trigger and rules out premature invocation. The 'only' framing plus the named source of the candidate (discovery) leaves no ambiguity about the alternative path.

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