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

Annotations only establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it clears a specific field, that the action is Undoable, and that it consumes no AI or credits. Those are exactly the mutation-safety and cost facts the annotations do not carry, and they are consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 compact sentences front-loaded with purpose and effect, then usage routing, then behavioral notes. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 explanation is unnecessary. For a two-param mutation the description covers trigger, effect, reversibility, and cost, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it 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% (both project_id and requirement_id are documented with format and meaning), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Confirm a suspect requirement') and immediately names the concrete effect ('clears `suspect_story_ids`'). The clause 'without rewriting it' distinguishes it from sibling mutators like requirements_patch/requirements_update, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the story edit does not change what the requirement must say') and the negative case with named alternatives ('otherwise rewrite the requirement or re-propagate the story'). This is a complete when/when-not/alternative statement.

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