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

The description says it 'Generate[s] vdd/specs/<id>/spec.md' and explicitly 'Overwrites the spec file', which is a filesystem mutation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction that would mislead an agent about the tool's side effects. The 'Overwrites' disclosure is useful on its own but is negated by the conflicting annotation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the primary purpose and artifact lead, followed by contents, the overwrite warning, the alternative, and parameter relationships. Every sentence carries information, though the single long paragraph is heavier than ideal.

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 generation, overwrite behavior, alternatives, and cross-phase parameter consistency. Its one gap is the unresolved read/write conflict with the annotations, which leaves the mutation semantics ambiguous.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-parameter meaning: 'feature' must match the value passed to vdd_clarify/vdd_plan/vdd_tasks, and actionItemId is the A-### id from tactics.md and is optional when authoring from a freeform description. This goes beyond the schema text.

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 artifact: 'Generate vdd/specs/<id>/spec.md for one tactical action item', and enumerates the contents (user stories, boundaries, AC, MoSCoW, NFRs). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling vdd_clarify, so an agent can pick it without opening another schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Use for a NEW spec') and when-not with the named alternative ('to resolve leftover [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers in an existing spec use vdd_clarify instead'). It also states the two input routes (actionItemId or freeform description to skip the V/S/T chain).

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