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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false; the description adds real context beyond them: writes require task-change permission, references are permanent and board-local, and it warns that account stores only where a credential lives, never the credential itself. It does not cover rate limits or reversibility of deletes, keeping it below a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded (purpose, then scenarios, then action semantics, then cross-tool notes) and every sentence carries information, with no filler. It is dense and em-dash heavy, reading as a long single block rather than tight scannable lines, which keeps it from a 5.

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 21-parameter CRUD tool with no output schema, it covers actions, lifecycle status, permissions, and cross-tool behavior (due items surfacing in fenbs_get_context). It stops short of describing the shape of list/get results, which an agent might still need, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 62%, so the description must compensate partly, and it does by mapping actions to parameters (list -> project, kind, status, dueWithinDays, q; get/update/delete -> id) and clarifying ref-vs-id usage. It adds meaning beyond the schema for action-to-param routing, though it leaves some params (linkType, targetUrl, whatIsListed) to the schema.

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 opening states a specific resource and scope: 'every place this work is listed or linked' with concrete categories (MCP directories, backlinks, app stores, profiles, domains). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling resources like items, decisions, and lessons, though it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with one, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It maps concrete situations to actions: publishing a version -> list then follow howToUpdate, submitting somewhere -> add, checking a backlink -> update lastCheckedOn. That is clear when-to-use context, but there is no 'when not to use' or named alternative tool, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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