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

Annotations already flag a non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds real value beyond them: no turnstile token is required, API-key auth suffices, the required OAuth scope is `feedback:requests:write`, and the response includes the assigned shortId. It does not mention possible side effects (notifications, duplicate submissions on retry given idempotentHint=false), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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, zero filler: action first, then the non-obvious category behavior, then auth/return details, then the scope. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 6-param creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the authentication model, permission scope, the return payload, and the one subtle parameter behavior. It falls short only on idempotency/retry guidance and on routing versus the sibling create tool.

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 67% and the description meaningfully augments it by explaining that `category` is resolved by name using a lenient match, which is more than the schema's "Optional category name". The remaining params (account, workspace, boardSlug, description) are handled by their schema descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Create a new feature request on a board") and the resource name implicitly distinguishes it from fr_create_bug and pm_create_task. It never names an alternative explicitly, but an agent can tell which create tool to pick by resource type alone.

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?

Usage context is implied: this is the tool for feature requests, with no turnstile token needed and API-key auth sufficient. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement relative to fr_create_bug, fr_vote_request, or a general pm_create_task, so the agent must infer the routing.

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