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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description explains exactly what the destruction does ('Replaces the Work description with the factual implementedSummary'). It also discloses non-obvious behaviors: batch closing in the same call, the response asking only for the missing summary, re-invocation semantics, and finishing planned/in-progress works — all far beyond the 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?

Five sentences, purpose front-loaded first. Each sentence carries distinct behavioral content (replacement, batch closing, response contract, re-invocation, scope). Slightly dense, but little waste.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema and complex Work/Batch lifecycle semantics, the description covers the tricky cases (conditional batch closing, re-invocation to close an open Batch, finishing planned/in-progress works). It lacks any note on auth/permissions or error conditions, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conditional meaning the schema only implies: batchSummary is required specifically when this closes the Batch, and implementedSummary replaces the existing description. This raises it above the schema-only baseline.

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 ('Record completed repository implementation') and immediately distinguishes the operation from siblings by naming the boundary behavior it performs (replaces description, marks done). An agent can differentiate it from update_work, delete_work, and begin_work from the text alone.

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 says when to use it ('Use it once implementation is complete') and describes the conditional batch-closing invocation. It doesn't name the obvious alternatives (e.g. update_work, begin_work) or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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