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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and non-read-only; the description adds the visibility scope ('owner-private'), reinforces the retry/idempotency contract in actionable terms, and discloses the side-effect boundary (no work started, no tickets created). It stops short of permissions/auth requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by operational guidance and then the scope boundary. No filler or restated field names.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the annotations plus description handle safe-mutation semantics. The main residual gap is the near-total absence of parameter-level explanation for four of six inputs, which matters for a tool whose schema documents none of them.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains request_id (persist-then-retry semantics) and gestures at goals ('with intent and goals'), but summary, context_kind (the enum), and repository_url receive no explanation anywhere.

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 ('Create an owner-private project') with an explicit scope qualifier ('with intent and goals') and a negative boundary ('Does not start work or create tickets'). It does not explicitly name the siblings it is distinct from (project_update, ticket_create), but the boundary clause does most of that work.

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 concrete invocation guidance: persist request_id before calling and retry with the exact same input after an uncertain response. It does not name alternatives (e.g., when to prefer project_update or project_list instead), so it is clear context without explicit exclusion guidance.

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