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

Annotations only declare non-readonly/non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the feature is visible to the team immediately, has no approval step, and no tasks are created by the server (design task only when modules need design, others on request). It also names the return values, which is meaningful given there is no output schema.

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 dense but front-loaded sentences covering purpose, side effects, and return values. Each sentence carries information, though the task-creation clause is a little compact and could be split for 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?

With no output schema, the description handily compensates by enumerating the returned fields (link, product, version, ord, specRevision). Combined with the side-effect disclosure and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters including gist, ord, spec and rulesRevision. The description adds only indirect context via 'the feature creation template', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Creates a feature in a product version') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling mutations like feature_update, feature_delete and feature_list. The agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 usage trigger ('when the user asks to add one'), which implies the when-not (not for modifying existing features). It does not explicitly name feature_update or other alternatives, so the guidance is clear but not fully routing.

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