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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds the far more useful optimistic-concurrency contract: expected_status is required and a mismatch returns current status instead of acting on stale state. That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields. It does not say whether transitions are reversible or what happens to a dismissed signal afterward.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the precondition contract; no filler. The parenthetical parameter requirements are compact, though the run-on structure slightly taxes scanning.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers action branching and the stale-state guard. The only material gap is the discrepancy between the expected_status enum containing 'assigned' while the status enum does not, which an agent must infer.

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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it does: it maps action values to their required companion parameters, constrains snoozed_until to a future value, and explains expected_status semantics. Only signal_id and the relationship between the 'assigned' expected_status value and the set_status enum (which lacks 'assigned') go unexplained.

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 ('Progress') and resource ('a business signal') and enumerates the four transitions the tool performs. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling list_business_signals without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear per-action conditions ('dismiss requires dismiss_reason', 'snooze requires future snoozed_until', 'assign requires member_id'), which tells the agent when each branch applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use the tool, 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.