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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states default values for progressStatus and planStatus, forbids deployed/done on create, explains that 'deployed' is not available to agents and must be set by a human, and describes projectName resolution from the workspace config. This is substantial and goes well beyond a basic 'creates an epic' statement.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, defaults, restrictions, config precedence, and workflow guidance. Important constraints are front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 an 8-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation decisions: defaults, unsupported statuses, project selection, and summary-versus-document content split. It leaves some minor gaps, such as the effect of the active parameter and any success/return behavior, but an agent has enough to call it correctly in most situations.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains the meaningful defaults for progressStatus and planStatus, the projectName config fallback, and distinguishes the summary field from documentId-linked detail. It does not clarify every parameter (e.g., active), but it adds substantial meaning to the most consequential ones.

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?

The description opens with 'Create an epic', a specific verb plus resource, and then differentiates creation from later state changes by noting that 'deployed'/'done' are not allowed on create. It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from siblings like update_epic, get_epic, and list_epics.

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 description gives clear contextual guidance: create before non-trivial work, keep summaries in the description, and link supporting detail via documentId. It also gives an environment-based rule about preferring the VSCode workspace projectName. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like update_epic for later status changes, so it has clear context but not fully explicit exclusions.

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