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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it returns a proposal without applying anything, persists it for review with ids and a review_url, that re-running replaces the saved proposal for the same targets, the double-application pitfall, and that it may take several minutes with progress notifications. This goes well beyond what the annotations 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence carries routing or behavioral payload rather than filler. It is dense and fairly long, but the length is justified by the multi-step accept/reject/fallback workflow it must convey; no sentence 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 re-explained, and the description still names the key returned fields (saved_suggestions, review_url). Combined with the full workflow guidance and duration/notification disclosure, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 83%, so the schema already documents project_id, chosen_story_ids, max_attempts, user_message, and extra_requirement_attributes. The description only implies 'stories by UUID' and 'optional subsystem requirements' (mapping loosely to propagate_to_subsystems), adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. 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 (propagate), the resource acted on (selected stories by UUID), and the destination (system requirements plus optional subsystem requirements with traceability links). This clearly distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling projects_propagate_requirements_to_subsystems, which propagates in the opposite direction.

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 routes the agent through the whole workflow: apply accepted items via suggestions_accept, decline with suggestions_reject, do not recreate accepted items with CRUD tools, fall back to suggestions_list and only then CRUD tools if saved_suggestions is absent. It also states the consequence of re-running (re-proposes and replaces, applies nothing). This is exhaustive when/when-not guidance.

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