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

Annotations establish the write/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: the feature is immediately team-visible, has no approval step, and spawns no tasks. It also discloses the return shape (link, product, version, ord, specRevision), compensating for the absent output schema. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or the spec/rulesRevision relationship, 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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly run-on, packing side-effect disclosure and return values into one semicolon-joined clause, but every element earns its place.

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 8-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects and return values well. It is slightly short on the required-parameter relationship (title/gist/rulesRevision/productID) and how spec relates to rulesRevision, leaving minor gaps.

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 all 8 parameters (including defaults for ord and versionID) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with scope: 'Creates a feature in a product version.' This is unambiguous against siblings like feature_update, feature_delete, feature_list, and even the differently-scoped task_create. An agent can select this 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?

'When the user asks to add one' gives a clear triggering context for use. However, no alternatives or exclusions are named (e.g., when to use feature_update or branch/task creation instead), so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not routing a 5 requires.

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