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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action changes what everyone sees, is restricted to the team owner, and needs mcp:write scope. It does not mention failure modes or side effects beyond the current selection, but these are reasonable for a simple selection operation.

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 three short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the permission constraint and write scope. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no padding.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the action, effect, permission, and scope. It does not explain success response or error conditions, but these are not required given the simplicity and existing schema hints.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics; the schema already provides descriptions for both game_id and task_id, with task_id referencing poker.game.tasks.list.

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 uses a specific verb ('puts') and clearly identifies the resource and effect: the selected task becomes the one being estimated and is visible to everyone. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task.reveal (revealing estimates) and tasks.add (adding a new task).

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 includes authorization constraints ('Only the team owner can change a game' and 'Requires mcp:write scope') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task.reveal or tasks.add. The use case is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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