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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the required-evidence precondition and the in-progress state requirement, but leaves open what happens after submission (notification, reversibility, whether re-submission is allowed) — meaningful gaps for a non-idempotent state-changing tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the condition, then the evidence requirement. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and a full-coverage schema, the description covers the trigger, the state precondition, and the evidence obligation. Only the post-submission outcome and re-submission behavior remain unstated, which are small relative to the rest.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the ticket key format and evidence content. The description restates the evidence requirement without adding format or length guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 plus a state transition: send an in-progress ticket to QA review. This clearly separates it from siblings like start_ticket, block_ticket, propose_ticket, and get_ticket, which operate on different lifecycle stages.

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 an explicit trigger condition ("when the work is done") and an implicit precondition (the ticket must be in progress). It does not name an alternative path for cases that aren't done or that need rejection, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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