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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the crucial behavioral facts those annotations cannot convey: the call is generative but non-committing (a proposal is returned), the agent must get user review before persisting, persistence happens via separate CRUD tools, and the call can run for minutes with progress notifications. Nothing here contradicts the 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?

Four short sentences, no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded before the workflow and performance caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information (what it does, what it returns, what to do next, how long it takes).

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still supplies the two things an agent most needs beyond schema: that no changes are applied and how to commit accepted results. Combined with the latency note, an agent can plan the whole interaction correctly.

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 all five parameters (project_id, chosen_reqs_ids, max_attempts, user_message, extra_requirement_attributes) are already documented. The description only glosses 'by UUID' and 'parent links' and adds no syntax or semantics for max_attempts, user_message, or extra_requirement_attributes, so the 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 precise verb ('Propagate'), the source resource ('selected system requirements by UUID'), the target ('requirements for existing subsystems') and the mechanism ('with parent links'). This is instantly distinguishable from close siblings like projects_propagate_stories or projects_align_requirements_to_stories 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 tells the agent the tool does NOT apply anything ('Returns a proposal without applying the suggested changes'), prescribes the follow-up workflow ('Review it with the user, then save accepted changes using the existing CRUD tools'), and sets a latency expectation ('May take several minutes'). This is when/when-not/alternative routing in one compact block.

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