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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must add the rest — and it does: it discloses merge-vs-replace behavior, that spec/result writes remove omitted doc sections and tokens, that featureID null detaches the task, and it even names the returned payload (link, status, transitions, specRevision, changed) despite no output schema. It stops short of noting permission/prerequisite requirements, keeping it from a full 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the sentences are dense but information-bearing, with no filler. It is one long semicolon-heavy sentence plus a compact second sentence, which is efficient but slightly difficult to parse for a 26-parameter tool.

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 complex mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core edit semantics, the return payload, and the status exception. It leaves some parameters (designUnlink, expectedSpecRevision requirement, work/review/approval assignees) to the schema, but the schema's 100% coverage makes that acceptable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 26 parameters in detail; the description largely restates and groups them (placement, bug fields, full new lists) rather than adding new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate, with minor credit for the grouping that aids navigation of the large param set.

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 and resource ('Edits a task or bug') and immediately scopes it ('shared team data'), then enumerates the editable field families. The clause 'Status is not changed here' implicitly distinguishes it from a status/action tool, so an agent can separate it from task_create, task_delete and task_action.

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?

The description signals partial-update semantics ('only the passed fields change') and that status changes belong elsewhere, which is useful routing context. However, no alternative tool is named explicitly and there is no statement of when to prefer this over task_create or task_action, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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