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

Annotations already mark it non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds operational behavior beyond that: required scopes, human approval, persist-before-remote-write ordering, uncertain-response reconciliation, and a concurrency caveat. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the action and destination, then adds prerequisites, persistence ordering, recovery guidance, and a final caveat. Every sentence contributes and there is no 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 non-idempotent, open-world export with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context: approvals, scope requirements, persistence semantics, recovery after uncertain responses, and concurrency limitations. An agent has enough to avoid duplicate remote writes.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds source/relationship semantics for expected_export_hash ('from preview_ticket_export') and destination ('same destination'), and names the provider choices, but it does not fully document ticket_id format or destination constraints beyond the schema. This is meaningful but incomplete.

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 and resource ('Export ... ticket to Jira or Linear') and anchors it to the previewed ticket via expected_export_hash, so an agent can distinguish it from preview_ticket_export and other export tools. The provider and owned-ticket scope are explicit.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: use expected_export_hash from preview_ticket_export, same destination, integrations:write/tickets:write, and independent human approval. It also names the recovery path after an uncertain response (inspect list_ticket_provider_effects, reconcile_ticket_provider_effect) and forbids blind re-export, which is strong when/alternative guidance.

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