Record an objection variant choice

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and safety profile, and the description adds useful operational context: required scopes, data sensitivity, idempotency-key handling, and workspace override. It does not explain the destructive implication despite destructiveHint=true, so it is not fully transparent.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the remaining lines are structured operation, auth, idempotency, and workspace notes. It is efficient overall, though some boilerplate is dense.

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 and annotations, the description covers auth, idempotency, workspace targeting, and the learning side effect. It still omits label semantics and destructive implications, but is broadly complete for invocation.

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 coverage is 60%; the description adds meaning for idempotencyKey and workspace overrides, but the required path id and body.label are not semantically documented in either place. The phrase "variant the coach chose" only loosely implies what label should contain.

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 states a specific verb ("Record"), a specific resource ("objection-specialist variant"), and a precise target ("one queued draft"). It also explains the downstream purpose, making it distinguishable from generic review-queue mutation siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: record the variant the coach actually chose for a queued draft. It does not name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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