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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Replace" signals a destructive overwrite, but it doesn't say whether prior objectives are destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, what happens on partial failure, or what the follow-up reply behavior implied by notification_message means.

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?

A single seven-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and zero filler. Its terseness is a completeness problem, not a verbosity one.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque required array parameter, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently construct the objectives payload or anticipate side effects from what is written here.

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 only 33% – only notification_message is documented. The required objectives array is typed as untyped objects with no item schema, and the description offers no help on what an objective object contains or what captureJobId identifies.

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 ("Replace checklist objectives") plus a scope qualifier ("preview phase only"). It is distinguishable from siblings like reset_checklist or mark_objective_done by its replace semantics, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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?

The only usage hint is the parenthetical "preview phase only," which is a constraint rather than routing guidance. Nothing says when to use this versus reset_checklist, mark_objective_done, or redo_objective, all of which touch checklist objectives in the same family.

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