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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=false and a title, so the description carries most of the burden. It does add real behavioral value not in the structured data: the case is visible to all active project members, and private sessions must not be copied in. It stops short of stating required permissions or what happens on failure.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The visibility statement and the source-linking caveat both earn their place, though the second sentence packs two distinct rules together.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers visibility and source-linking constraints but omits parameter guidance and return/confirmation behavior. Adequate, but an agent still has gaps to fill from the schema alone.

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?

Two required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never mentions 'title' or the project identifier beyond the phrase 'shared project work board', leaving the agent to infer that project_id must be supplied as a UUID.

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 — 'Create one case on a shared project work board' — which is immediately distinguishable from listing (list_shared_project_work_board) or moving (move_shared_work_case) a case. It does not name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 sentence 'Link existing shared ToDos and GitHub Issues to this case separately; do not copy private sessions into it' routes the agent toward a separate linking step and gives a clear exclusion. However, it never names the actual alternative tool (link_shared_work_case_source) or states prerequisites, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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