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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds useful state-machine behavior ('sets the plan state to drafted') not present in annotations, but says nothing about overwrite semantics, permission/auth needs, or rate limits beyond what the schema carries.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then content requirements, then the state transition and next step. Every sentence carries information and none repeats the schema verbatim.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, plan content, resulting state, and the correct follow-up call. The one gap is that it does not explain the plan_actions/unattended-execution consequence, which lives only in the schema.

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, but the description meaningfully enriches the required 'plan' parameter by specifying the expected content (proposed change, blast radius, rollback strategy, verification steps). That content guidance goes beyond the schema's bare 'full plan document (markdown)'.

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 pair (write/revise) and resource (the ticket's markdown plan document), and immediately distinguishes it from the workflow sibling by naming ticket_request_review as the follow-on. An agent can tell this is the plan-authoring tool, not a review or decision tool.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('drafting, or re-drafting after changes were requested') and routes the agent to the next step (ticket_request_review). It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use this' exclusion, but the workflow context is well established.

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