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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-idempotency (idempotentHint: false). The description adds concrete behaviors: priority defaults to 4 (low), auto-adds the 'suggestion' tag, and resolves project by slug with fallback to default project. It does not disclose error behaviors or return values, but the core side effects are covered.

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 main action, and no redundant filler. The second sentence packs the defaults and differentiation efficiently.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral contract (defaults, tag, project resolution) and differentiates from the sibling. It omits return-value details and failure cases, but those are not critical given the simplicity. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to use.

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 100%, with each parameter already described in Russian (e.g., priority default 4, project slug fallback, tags auto-add suggestion). The description mostly repeats these facts in English, adding only the semantic label 'low' for priority 4. Thus it adds minimal value beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Quick-capture', 'Creates a backlog task') and names the resource ('task or improvement idea into a project'). It distinguishes from sibling goal-create by calling itself a 'Lightweight alternative... when you need minimal ceremony.'

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as a lightweight alternative to goal-create for minimal ceremony, implying the alternative for more formal creation. It also notes the default project fallback and auto-tagging, but does not state explicit when-not conditions. The contrast with goal-create gives sufficient context.

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