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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses that no changes are applied (proposal-only), that changes must be committed separately, and that the call may take several minutes with progress notifications. Those are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, followed by the workflow constraint and the latency caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given the AI-generation workflow, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the input basis, the proposal-not-commit semantics, the review step, the follow-up tools, and the long-running behavior.

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 project_id, llm_name, and user_message are already documented individually, including the LLM enum example. The description references the project description as the source but adds no format, default, or interaction detail for any parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Draft') and specific resources ('stakeholders and their stories') plus the input source ('from the project description'). This cleanly separates it from sibling generation/alignment tools such as projects_align_stakeholders_to_stories or projects_make_description without opening any 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?

Explicitly defines when and how to use it: it returns a proposal, the agent must review it with the user, and accepted changes are saved with the existing CRUD tools. This routes the agent to the correct follow-up siblings (stakeholders_create, stories_create) and states the non-application constraint.

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