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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral facts: the server owns revision 1, returns current_version and current_definition_hash, and that those exact values must be passed to ticket_validation_finalize. It also clarifies that authoring is not evidence. It doesn't cover failure modes or permissions, but adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second provides the workflow context, and the third adds a conceptual constraint. The structure is logical, though the final sentence is slightly abstract. Still, each sentence earns its place.

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 create tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the role in the epic lifecycle, the coupling with ticket_validation_finalize, and a key semantic caveat. It doesn't explain the 'owned ticket' prerequisite in detail or document all parameters, but the workflow guidance is strong and mostly offsets the 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 description coverage is only 38%, and the description does not elaborate on any input parameter beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions return values (current_version, current_definition_hash) but leaves parameters like scenario_key, order_index, and required undocumented. The schema already describes the step arrays, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Author one Given/When/Then scenario') on a specific resource ('an owned ticket'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ticket_scenario_revise (revising a scenario) and ticket_validation_finalize (validating a scenario). The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly explains when this tool is used: 'This is the specification an epic must carry before it can be completed.' It also provides the exact next step ('record a passing run against it with ticket_validation_finalize') and how to chain the call (pass the returned current_version and current_definition_hash). The caveat 'Authoring a scenario is not evidence' prevents misuse by clarifying this is not a validation step.

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