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

The annotations are all false/neutral, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that calling after the build starts reopens the scope and requires another acceptance, and that a new spec_text is returned. It does not go into failure modes or authorization requirements beyond the schema's token description.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the operation and return, then add the timing constraint. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The description covers the essential return value and the workflow timing, and the schema covers all parameters including the one-time request_token source. The only slight gap is that the re-open/accept-again behavior is compressed and could be clearer about consequences.

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 schema already documents ticket, changes, and request_token. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('ask for a scope change') and names the resource (the build's ticket) and return value (the new spec_text). It also distinguishes the tool from accept/withdraw siblings by specifying the workflow phase in which it applies.

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?

It explicitly states when the call is valid: before acceptance, and after BB-ACCEPT until the build starts. It also notes the re-open/re-accept behavior, giving clear context, though it does not name an alternative sibling as the preferred tool.

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