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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the operation is a board state transition to 'Shipped' and should only fire after user validation and branch merge. It does not describe failure behavior if those preconditions are unmet.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the precondition sentence immediately follows without redundancy.

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 single-purpose state-transition tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what changes, when it is safe to call, and the gating preconditions.

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 'feature' and 'venture' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or disambiguation guidance beyond that, so the 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-resource-state combination: 'Marks a feature Shipped on the user's board.' The target state 'Shipped' implicitly separates it from start_feature and list_features, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 a concrete precondition for invocation: only after the user confirms the feature works and its branch is merged. This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative (e.g. start_feature, list_features) or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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