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

Annotations only give readOnly=false/idempotent=false/destructive=false; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the no-op dry-run ("Nothing changes without ship"), exactly what shipping does (task becomes Completed with resolution shipped, old text preserved in History), failure surfacing (non-matching refs returned in notShipped), and the permission requirement.

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 trigger and the two-phase shape, and nearly every sentence carries operational weight. It is a dense single block, though, and phrasing like "where it stands" repeated inline slightly taxes readability.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, side effects, exclusions, permissions, and partial-match returns. The exact shape of the first-call result is only described conceptually, so it stops just short of fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces commit provenance (git log formatting) and the interdependency that ship refs are chosen from a prior call's matches, but adds little syntax or meaning the schema lacks.

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 two-phase verb+resource: find tasks whose commits just went live, then mark the fully-live ones as shipped. It is unmistakably distinct from the CRUD siblings (add/update/delete/restore) and even from fenbs_release_task, since it frames the work as deploy-driven commit matching.

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 ("After a deploy or release"), explicit sequencing (call first without ship, then call again with ship), and an explicit exclusion rule ("Leave out a task with part still not live, such as an app update or a second repository"). The permission prerequisite ("Shipping needs permission to move tasks") is also stated.

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