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

Annotations establish this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it explains that linking a repo can replace a prior linked repo, that private repos require the GitHub Reviews App, that sign-in is needed, and that repeated id-only calls recheck the same repo.

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 and every part serves a purpose, including presentation guidance. However, the opening sentence is a long run-on that packs several behaviors together and could be easier to scan if broken into shorter statements.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key operational context an agent needs: linking behavior, auth requirements, drift handling, and how to present results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter workflow semantics: repo is needed the first time, id alone is enough afterward, and id comes from list_saved_stacks.

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: link a GitHub repo to a saved plan and check it. It then names the concrete outcomes—found/not-found services, drift, and plan-built status—so the agent can distinguish it from siblings like detect_stack and diff_stack.

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?

It explicitly explains the first call (pass id and repo) and subsequent calls (id alone rechecks the linked repo). It also gives handling guidance for drift and not-found services, including using get_build_pack and diff_stack, and notes sign-in and GitHub App requirements for private repos.

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