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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations by clarifying that recording succeeds as a suggestion without mutating the underlying milestones.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then the key behavioral caveat, followed by a tight per-kind requirement list. Dense and free of filler, though the terse 'Record a suggested change' opener is slightly thin for an opener.

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 no explanation. For a 9-parameter tool with conditional requirements, the per-kind field mapping covers the hardest part; only the meaning of the two always-required fields goes unexplained.

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 carries the burden, and it does the most valuable part: mapping each 'kind' enum value to its conditionally-required fields (e.g. add_criterion needs milestoneId and statement). It leaves the required milestoneSetId and summary undocumented, but the conditional mapping is a strong, non-obvious addition over the bare schema.

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 ('Record a suggested change') and immediately distinguishes it from the actual mutation by noting 'This does not change the milestones.' This implicitly separates it from the sibling accept_milestone_change, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a suggestion-recording tool rather than one that applies changes, and 'does not change the milestones' gestures at that boundary. But it never names alternatives like accept_milestone_change or approve_milestones, nor states when a suggestion should be filed instead of making a real change.

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