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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral context: it returns a proposal without applying changes, and may take several minutes with progress notifications. This is valuable information beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't detail what the proposal contains or error scenarios.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how to use the result, and the performance characteristic. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then workflow guidance, then operational note. No waste.

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?

Complete for this tool's complexity. The output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds the critical workflow context (proposal-only, review-then-save) and performance expectation. An agent has everything needed to invoke and handle this tool 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 3 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions linking to system requirements but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource combination ('Draft design specifications linked to system requirements') that distinguishes it from siblings like projects_make_stories_from_description or projects_align_requirements_to_stories. The description clearly communicates the drafting/proposal nature of the operation.

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 states the workflow: this returns a proposal, the user should review it, and accepted changes should be saved using existing CRUD tools. This clearly routes the agent to the correct sequence of operations and names the alternative pathway (CRUD tools for persistence).

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