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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it does not apply changes (proposal only), it merges accepted links with existing relationships on save, it may run for several minutes, and progress notifications report elapsed time when supported. The 'without applying changes' statement sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, but the description is clarifying rather than contradicting, and the latency/merge disclosures are exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot carry.

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 with no filler, and the proposal-first constraint is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence conveys distinct behavior for this workflow tool.

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 a long-running AI proposal tool with an output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: default selection behavior, non-application of changes, merge semantics on save, and the handoff to CRUD tools. Nothing needed to invoke or follow up correctly is absent.

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, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not: omitting chosen_story_ids/chosen_stakeholder_ids falls back to all stakeholders and stories. It adds nothing for project_id or user_message, which the schema already documents.

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 ('Propose stakeholder-story links') and clearly frames the output as a proposal rather than an applied mutation, which separates it from CRUD-style siblings. It does not name the nearest analogue, projects_align_requirements_to_stories or projects_align_to_story, so the sibling differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the 'stakeholder' vs 'requirement' wording.

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 concrete operational guidance: omit selections to default to all stakeholders/stories, review the proposal with the user, then persist accepted links via existing CRUD tools. It says when to use and where the follow-up write happens, though it never states when not to use this in favor of the sibling align tools.

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