Mark a chokepoint executed

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: it mutates nothing outside internal accounting, requires explicit confirmation, rejects non-matching plan hashes and HOLD verdicts, and excludes pre-flight-held assets. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent clear expectations for side effects and refusal conditions.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, and the second paragraph lists constraints in a scannable list-like sentence. No filler words; every clause contributes meaningful information.

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 9-parameter state-changing tool, the description covers purpose, side-effect boundaries, all refusal conditions, and relationship to other servers/tools. Output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke safely and 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of key parameters: confirm must be true, plan_hash must match the current plan, and HOLD verdicts/pre-flight assets are excluded — which clarifies rank, wave, and approval fields. This lifts it above baseline.

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 ('Record') with a clear resource ('that the plan's steps were executed') and states the downstream effect ('arming verification with expected retirements'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chokepoint_verify and chokepoint_plan.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: after plan steps have been executed through other MCP servers, and before verification. It also states important preconditions (explicit confirmation, matching plan hash, no HOLD verdict). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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