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

The description carries the behavioral burden because annotations are all generic false hints. It discloses immutability, request_id-based retry/new-baseline semantics, and the required permission, which materially informs an agent about side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: primary action, retry behavior, then auth requirement. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers action, safety, retry, and auth, but no output schema exists and root_id/label semantics are incomplete, so an agent still has to guess at two required inputs and the response shape. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is 0% and only request_id is semantically explained via the retry/new-baseline guidance. root_id is only indirectly tied to 'an owned delivery group', and label is not explained at all, leaving two required parameters under-specified.

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 'Save immutable scope, estimates and explicit plan versions/dates', a specific verb and resource with clear object and ownership scope. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling get/list/compare_scope_baseline tools.

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 gives actionable guidance: use for an owned delivery group, reuse the same request_id on retries, and require tickets:write. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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