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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals a mutation, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it explicitly says 'Add', discloses the return of a new useCaseId, and states the draft-state restriction. These go beyond the minimal annotation and help the agent predict behavior.

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 with no redundancy. The main action, required parameters, return value, and a precondition are all presented efficiently, with the most critical information front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what inputs are needed, what it returns, and a key operational constraint. It doesn't dive into error scenarios or undo behavior, but for a straightforward add-operation with sibling tools providing context, this is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains that title is required and description optional, and implies utId identifies the target UT. However, it does not define 'UT', 'scenario', or any format constraints, leaving some ambiguity that the schema does not resolve.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Add a use case to a draft UT's scenario'), identifies required and optional fields (title required, description optional), and explains the conceptual purpose (grouping related tasks). This clearly differentiates it from update_use_case (modification vs. addition) and other siblings.

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?

Provides a clear precondition ('Only works on PREPARING drafts') and explicit workflow guidance (returns useCaseId to use with add_task). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context and precondition are sufficient for a competent agent.

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