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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (not read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: severity/productArea are resolved leniently by name, environment is an unconstrained free-form map, and the required auth scope. It stops short of stating what happens when a name fails to resolve or what is returned.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with each subsequent sentence adding a distinct piece of non-redundant information (name resolution, environment shape, auth scope). Zero filler.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with nested object and no output schema, the description covers creation semantics and auth but omits what a successful call returns and how to obtain a valid boardSlug. Adequate to call it, incomplete for calling it correctly on the first try.

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 only 55%, but the description supplies meaning the schema lacks for the two resolution-sensitive params (severity, productArea are matched by name leniently) and clarifies the environment map's shape. The remaining undocumented fields (actualResult, expectedResult, stepsToReproduce) are self-descriptive by name, so the gap is modest.

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 a new bug report on a board,' which implicitly separates it from fr_create_request. It does not explicitly name or exclude the sibling request-creation tool, so an agent must infer the bug-vs-request distinction.

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 required API-key scope `feedback:bugs:write` is a genuine usage precondition, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus fr_create_request, nor guidance on discovering boardSlug via list_boards. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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