Explain VAGP decision

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the 'deterministic' nature of the decision and reiterates that it cannot create or modify authority, providing context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences, with the core action and resource in the first sentence and a clarifying limitation in the second. No wasted words, and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter coverage, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It explains the purpose but omits parameter semantics and return value expectations, leaving critical gaps for a tool with two flexible object inputs.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented object parameters. It vaguely mentions 'decision or permit' but does not clarify which parameter maps to which concept or how they relate. This leaves the agent guessing about how to populate the parameters.

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 (Explain) and resource (VAGP authority decision or permit). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like resolve or verify by focusing on explanation, and explicitly notes it is informational only, which separates it from mutation-capable tools.

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 implies usage by saying it is informational only and cannot create or modify authority, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings. There is no 'when to use' guidance beyond that hint.

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