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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine cross-tool behavioral context: lanes must exist before tasks and their laneId is referenced in task kindMetadata, which is not derivable from the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and definition, then the required input, then the multi-actor workflow. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the name.

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 needed and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description supplies the crucial workflow context (create before tasks, reference laneId) an agent needs. The one gap is that it does not explain expectedProjectId's session-override behavior, though the schema does.

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% and each parameter (id, name, actor, order, expectedProjectId) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates actor's required status and gives examples, but adds no format or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Creates a swimlane (actor lane) for the process') and immediately defines what a lane is, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings such as add_kind_node or add_journey_phase without opening any 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 clear ordering guidance ('one lane per actor, created before the tasks, with its laneId referenced in the kindMetadata of each task') and confirms 'the actor is required'. It establishes when and in what sequence to call the tool, but never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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