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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description usefully explains the STATE/WITHHOLD decision semantics, but it never explains what the destructive write actually does (overwrite vs. append), that expectedRevision governs concurrency, or what WITHHOLD's recorded 'script' means operationally.

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?

Five short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Some phrasing is cryptic ('the only script that may be said') and could be tightened, but nothing is padded.

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 7-parameter, 5-required mutation tool with a destructive hint, a zero-description schema and no parameter docs, the description leaves major gaps: revision-based concurrency, the status enum, and the board scoping are all unaddressed. The output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but the input side is under-served.

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 carry all seven parameters, and it only meaningfully covers three (matchTerms, wording, decision). The added meaning for matchTerms and wording is genuinely beyond the schema, but boardId, name, status, and especially expectedRevision are left completely unexplained.

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 ('Store a cause the user has explicitly approved') and immediately qualifies what a valid cause is. It is distinguishable from list_approved_causes and save_approved_statement, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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 validation-flavored guidance ('matchTerms must name a specific incident', 'the word outage or cause alone is not a rule') that implies when a cause is admissible, but never states when to call this versus save_approved_statement or the list_* tools, nor any prerequisites like board setup.

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