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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral specifics: priority defaults to 4 (low), 'suggestion' tag is auto-added, and project resolution falls back to default. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then defaults and fallback, closing with the sibling comparison. No filler or redundancy.

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 quick-capture creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: what it creates, defaults, project resolution, and when to prefer it over goal-create. It does not mention return value or duplicate behavior, but annotations already signal non-idempotency.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., clarifies priority 4 as 'low'), but largely restates defaults already documented 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?

Description opens with a specific action ('Quick-capture a task or improvement idea') and names the resource (project/backlog task). It also differentiates itself from sibling goal-create, so an agent can choose correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly describes a lightweight alternative to goal-create with a clear condition ('when you need minimal ceremony'), which routes tool selection. It does not spell out negative cases, but the comparison is sufficiently clear.

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