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

Annotations mark it as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: already-imported features are not re-read, only changed ones are listed, and the call consumes no AI and no credits. That cost/scope disclosure goes beyond the annotation set, though it doesn't address failure modes or permissions.

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, each carrying a distinct fact (precondition, action, follow-up, incremental semantics), with the precondition front-loaded. Dense and efficient; only minor tightening possible.

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 shape need not be described, and the description still notes that changed features are listed. Precondition, sequencing, and cost are all covered; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears 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 coverage is 100% for the single project_id parameter, so the baseline is already satisfied. The description adds meaning by constraining which projects the id may refer to (one produced by projects_import_speckit), which the schema field itself does not say.

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 (re-read the repository and import features added since) and pins the scope to projects created by projects_import_speckit. It is immediately distinguishable from both projects_import_speckit (initial import) and projects_fold_speckit_features (which it names as a follow-up).

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?

Explicit precondition ('For a project created by projects_import_speckit') and explicit next step ('Run projects_fold_speckit_features afterwards to fold them in'). This tells the agent both when this tool applies and what the correct call sequence is.

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