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

Annotations establish a mutating, non-idempotent, destructive operation; the description adds the concrete effects that annotations cannot convey: it records a 'Decision:' comment, clears the question, resumes the agent, and is equivalent to deciding on the board page. The refusal precondition is also disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then effects, then guardrails, then ticket identification. Every sentence carries weight; the phrasing is somewhat dense but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutating tool with rich annotations, no output schema, and fully documented parameters, this covers everything an agent needs: the action, side effects, precondition, the source of options, and how the ticket is identified.

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 parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine meaning by explaining option_key as 'the options the agent offered, as listed under decision_request by ticket_get' and clarifying that answer is the free-form alternative, which links the parameters to their source.

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+resource: answer the choice a blocked AI work board ticket is waiting on, by picking an offered option_key or giving an answer. It distinguishes itself from ticket_get (which surfaces the decision_request) and from ticket_comment (which merely adds a comment). An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only use this when the person has actually made the choice; never decide for them') and when-not ('refused when the ticket is not waiting on a decision'). It also points to ticket_get as the source for the options, leaving nothing to inference.

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