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

The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations — it says only tasks are added, nothing else changes, and it reports how many tasks were added. However, "running it again adds nothing new" asserts idempotent behavior while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, sending the agent a conflicting message about whether repeated calls are safe.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the side-effect boundary, idempotency note and return value. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter mutation on a single request, the description covers scope, side effects and the return value even though no output schema exists. It never mentions permission/authorization requirements or what happens when the site or request id does not resolve, which is a modest remaining gap.

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% and both parameters (site, request_id) already document the accepted forms — slug/id/name from list_sites and full/partial id from list_requests. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Give a request a task for every data map system that holds personal data and has none yet" names a specific verb (give/add), resource (tasks on a request) and a precise scope (uncovered personal-data systems). This is clearly distinct from the sibling add_data_map_system, which creates systems rather than tasks.

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 states the trigger condition — systems added after the request was verified — and points the agent to the exact source of truth (uncoveredSources in get_request), which tells it when this tool is the right call versus creating or updating systems. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to use instead when there is nothing uncovered, so it is not a full 5.

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