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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write-tier approval note adds context beyond the schema. The description discloses that title/description flow verbatim into marketing and that first use may require manager approval. It doesn't fully explain what 'destructive' means here, but the approval and verbatim-flow details are valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and trigger phrases. The routing and approval notes are dense but relevant. Slight redundancy in the approval section ('a from-now-on approval makes future calls seamless, a just-once approval re-asks next time') could be trimmed, but it earns its place.

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?

For a write-tier tool with 8 params and no output schema, the description covers the key context: when to call, what to call first, and approval behavior. It doesn't describe the return value or what happens after creation, but the routing note and trigger phrases make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds context for title/description (verbatim flow into marketing) but doesn't add meaning for the other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add a new feature to the Feature Index') and gives concrete trigger phrases ('I built X', 'add feature Y'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_feature, retire_feature, and list_features by framing it as the creation entry point.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('Use when user says...') and provides routing guidance ('call get_product_context first'). It also includes approval-tier guidance ('Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat'), which is unusually actionable for an agent.

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