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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the capture is immutable and owner-private, retries return the original capture even after source deletion, missing history stays unavailable, and the tool explicitly does not touch schedules, notifications or provider work. These are exactly the safety and idempotency details an agent needs for a write tool.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what is captured, then window default, then retry rule, then scope exclusions. Terminology is jargon-heavy but no sentence is 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?

For a 3-param write tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers immutability, idempotency, default window, and exclusions. It omits any indication of the returned capture shape and only indirectly names root_id's target, but no fatal gap remains.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains weeks (default eight UTC weeks, versus the 1-26 range in the schema) and request_id semantics (owner-wide idempotency key reused with identical arguments). root_id is only implied via 'one epic's current descendants' rather than stated as an epic identifier.

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 (save/capture) and resource (immutable owner-private delivery scenario plus replay inputs scoped to one epic's descendants). The adverb 'Explicitly' hints at a contrast with an implicit sibling, but no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the get/list/compare distinction.

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 real retry guidance ('reuse the same owner-wide request_id and exact arguments after an uncertain response') and a default window, which is useful operational context. However, it never says when to call this instead of list_feature_forecasts, get_feature_forecast, or compare_feature_forecasts.

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