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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond that: supplying an answer marks it answered, and answered/dismissed states are never overwritten by regeneration. It doesn't state what happens if the question ID is stale or invalid, but the persistence guarantee is a meaningful disclosure an agent cannot get from annotations.

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 sentences with zero padding; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence carries only the non-obvious persistence rule. Nothing is wasted.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing an agent would otherwise have to guess — that answers are durable across regeneration — though it says nothing about error or invalid-id behavior for a required-UUID mutation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents answer, status, project_id and open_question_id. The description restates the answer/answered linkage that is already in the answer parameter description, adding no new syntax, format or constraint information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pair (answer/dismiss) and a specific resource (an open question), and the second sentence clarifies the two outcomes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like open_questions_list or open_questions_convert_to_story, but the mutation semantics are unambiguous.

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 implies the usage context (resolving an open question raised earlier in elicitation) and notes that the answer feeds back into later elicitation, but it never states when to use this versus convert_to_story or general regeneration. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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