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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about duplicate human ids, what happens when content.id is omitted, lifecycle defaults, or side effects on linked stories/subsystems. The only added content is structural placement advice, which belongs to the parameter dimension.

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?

One short sentence plus a single dense placement sentence, with the create action front-loaded. The second half is clause-heavy but every clause maps to a real nesting decision the caller must make. No filler.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a tool with a deeply nested required object, however, the description says nothing about creation failure modes (duplicate content.id, unknown UUID references) or default lifecycle/flags. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description mostly restates what the schema already says about nesting ('Keep text, human label and metadata in content. Relationship fields alongside content accept UUIDs only'). The emphasis on content.requirement/content.id and on source_story_ids/source_requirement_ids/subsystem_id is a helpful glovebox note for a deeply nested object, but it duplicates rather than extends the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a requirement.' That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from requirements_delete/patch/update in the sibling list. It stops short of naming when this creation path is preferred over alternatives, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the project and any subsystem/story must already exist), and no routing against siblings like requirements_update or requirements_patch. The schema hints that omitted relationship lists preserve links in patches, but the description itself gives the agent nothing about choosing this tool.

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