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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that it does not persist anything (update_task does), that it may or may not surface a form, and that answers are not launch approval. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a read tool with a side-channel UI dependency.

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, then fallback behavior, then constraints. Nearly every clause carries information; only the mid-sentence form/chat clause is slightly compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the one non-obvious return behavior (form vs. returned questions). The chief gap is the unlabeled identity/revision parameters, but the rest of the contract is sufficiently described.

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 50%: task, scenario and stopCondition are well documented inline, but testId, blockId and expectedRevision carry no description text and the description does not compensate (no concurrency/conflict note for expectedRevision, no statement that testId/blockId identify the existing task). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 object ("Collect up to two missing wording fields for an existing task") and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_task, which persists the values. The phrase "wording fields" is a little abstract versus the concrete task/scenario/stopCondition names in the schema, so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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 real routing guidance: use forms when supported, otherwise ask the returned questions in chat, and save accepted wording via update_task. It also sets two negative rules (never include secrets, never treat answers as launch approval). It stops short of naming when this tool should be preferred over add_task or create_block_test.

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