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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the default is append rather than overwrite, replace=true switches to destructive replacement, and 'Commits immediately' warns there is no confirmation or undo step. It stops short of saying whether a replace discards existing options irrecoverably or how failures are reported.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action comes first, followed by the mutation semantics that matter most. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutating tool with nested option objects and no output schema, the description covers the action, the append/replace behavior, and immediate persistence. It leaves minor gaps around error conditions and what the tool returns, but nothing that would cause a misinformed call.

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 75%, and the schema itself documents the options entry shapes and the replace flag in detail. The description only reinforces the replace/append semantics and says nothing about task_id or the additional_information catch-all, so it adds little meaning beyond the structured fields.

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: 'Attach a list of shortlisted options to a task', with a concrete use case (decision task, exploring alternatives). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_task or break_down_task, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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 parenthetical 'e.g. for a decision task or when exploring alternatives' implies when this is appropriate, and 'Options are appended unless replace=true' clarifies the default mode. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as the task already existing, and no named alternative for related operations.

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