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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false. The description adds real value beyond those: the source and target board states, and the side effect that the board reflects git-following behavior. It omits what happens if the feature isn't in Ready state, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, no filler, and the state transition — the most decision-relevant fact — is front-loaded before the calling restriction and parameter hint.

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 and all three params documented in the schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and the git_branch effect adequately. It could still say what error or no-op occurs when the feature is not Ready, given idempotentHint=true.

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 baseline is 3, but the description clarifies the effect of git_branch ('the board then shows the feature follows git') and frames 'feature' as one that is Ready, adding meaning beyond the schema's terse 'id.'

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 with an explicit state transition: 'Moves a Ready feature to In Progress on the user's board.' An agent can separate this from finish_feature or list_features 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 a strong negative constraint: 'Only call this when you are actually building it now in the user's project.' Context and the capability precondition (you can edit their files) are clear, but it never names the counterpart tool (finish_feature) as the alternative for the opposite transition.

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