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

The description adds valuable context: preview is non-mutating, commit requires an exact preview_token, and no external side effects occur. However, it explicitly claims 'idempotently commit' while the annotation idempotentHint is false, which is a direct annotation contradiction.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, front-loading the core operation, then permission requirements, mode behavior, commit protocol, and side-effect boundaries. No filler is present.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential state machine, required permissions, return values, and side-effect exclusions. Optional parameter semantics and error/replay-status details are not fully specified, but the core calling flow is well documented.

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 only 20%, so the description compensates somewhat by explaining mode, prompt, plan, preview_token, and idempotency_key semantics. However, it leaves model, context, session_id, auto_assign, and max_tickets unexplained, and introduces 'commit_payload' as a concept not named in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Preview or idempotently commit an owner-private ticket tree generated from a planning prompt or supplied structured plan.' It distinguishes the tool's two modes and explicitly states what it does not do ('never runs them, sends, publishes, deletes, or changes an external provider.'

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?

Clearly explains when each mode is appropriate, including the conditional councils:run requirement and which paths only require tickets:write. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so explicit exclusion guidance is absent.

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