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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true already signaling a state-changing operation, the description adds meaningful context: no securities are actually issued or signed, confirmation is required, and amount/discount formats are specified. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 three short sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by compact unit/format guidance and a useful legal/behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 create-with-confirmation tool, the description captures the planning-only nature and the confirmation/plan-limits gating, and the output schema likely covers return values. However, the required concurrency and idempotency contract behind expected_version and idempotency_key is not explained, which is a meaningful gap for correct 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters, but it only clarifies units/format (whole USD, fractional discounts) and indirectly references confirmation. Required parameters such as expected_version, idempotency_key, project_id, cap_table_id, and the nested data object are left unexplained beyond their schema 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?

The description opens with a concrete verb ('Add') and names the resource as an address-free planning stakeholder, share position, SAFE, or note, clearly distinguishing this from update_stakeholder and delete_stakeholder. 'Within plan limits after confirmation' adds operational scope that helps an agent understand what kind of creation this is.

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 the tool is for adding a new planning entity rather than modifying or removing one, so an agent can infer the primary use case from context. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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