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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is elsewhere: it discloses that the call is proposal-only, that accepted links get merged with existing relationships rather than replacing them, and that execution 'may take several minutes' with progress notifications. That merge-vs-replace detail is exactly the kind of mutation semantics an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not discuss authorization needs or what happens to the proposal if never accepted.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and with no filler; the runtime note and the save-workflow note each carry distinct information. It is slightly more granular than necessary for a 10% weight dimension, but nothing is redundant.

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 annotations cover the safety profile; the description still covers propose-only behavior, selection defaults, merge semantics, and latency. The one remaining gap is the purpose of extra_requirement_attributes, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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, and the description adds genuine semantics: omitting chosen_reqs_ids/chosen_story_ids means 'use all requirements and stories,' which defines a default the schema does not state. It remains silent on user_message and extra_requirement_attributes, so it improves on the baseline without fully covering all five parameters.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Propose story-requirement links.' Combined with the follow-up that it returns a proposal without applying changes, an agent can distinguish this from the write-oriented siblings (requirements_update, stories_update) and from projects_align_stakeholders_to_stories. It stops short of naming an alternative align tool explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 states the default behavior ('Omit selections to use all requirements and stories') and the intended workflow ('Review it with the user, then save accepted changes using the existing CRUD tools'), which routes the agent to the right sibling tools for persistence. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or statement of prerequisites (e.g., required project state), so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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