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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals crucial behavior: the PROGRESS vs. Fixed distinction based on file types, and the deployed-verified merge-close rail. It also discloses the write-tier approval process (manager approval, from-now-on vs. just-once) which the annotations do not cover. This is rich context that helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core actionable verb and object, then flows into important conditional behaviors. The bracketed write-tier note is separated for emphasis. While slightly long, every sentence carries meaningful information and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema Equality, the description explains the key outcomes (PROGRESS vs. Fixed), error recovery (reopen_product_request), and permission requirements (write-tier approval). An agent has enough to decide when and how 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%, so both `request_id` and `pr_url` are already well-documented. The description reinforces that the PR URL must already be a `freedom-ai` GitHub PR, but adds no new semantic details about parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Attach an existing freedom-ai GitHub PR URL to a product request.' It clearly differentiates from `open_product_request_draft_pr` by focusing on attaching an existing PR rather than opening a new one, and it references `reopen_product_request` for reversal, establishing its distinct role in the workflow.

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 when to use: 'Use when you (or a coding agent) opened a real PR for the filed fix.' It also specifies what happens in different cases (draft PRs attach as PROGRESS, not Fixed) and directs to the alternative `reopen_product_request` for false Fixed. The write-tier approval note gives additional operational context without ambiguity.

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