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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: resolving can re-trigger a blocked milestone, the user is prompted to confirm, and milestones:approve is required. It doesn't describe failure behavior or reversibility (reopen_manager_task), so it stops short of the top.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the usage gate, then the side-effect warning. No filler and each sentence adds a distinct constraint.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the safety burden and does well: mutation nature, confirmation flow, and permission requirement are all present. Minor gaps remain (no return/error behavior, no mention that reopen_manager_task exists to undo), but it is sufficient to call safely.

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 75% and the schema already documents id and project; the description only fleshes out the nature of the note ('what was done or decided') and says nothing about chosen_option or format specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most parameter meaning.

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 ('Mark a Chief manager task done') plus the note payload, and the re-run-milestone side effect separates it behaviorally from dismiss/reopen siblings. An agent can distinguish the intent without opening the 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 an explicit precondition ('Only do this when the user said so in this conversation') and names the dependency path when the task resumes a blocked milestone (user confirmation, needs milestones:approve). When-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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