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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses a destructive side effect ('discards any pending review change that has not been merged yet'), an auth constraint ('Read-only sessions cannot call this'), and the return value ('the new commit_sha'). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance, return value, side effect, and auth note. Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, timing, side effects, auth, and return value. An output schema exists, yet the description still names commit_sha, and nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 must compensate. It explains 'title' (short human-readable title) and 'body' (optional longer body describing what this version captures), clarifying meaning and optionality. 'project_id' is left implicit, but its role is evident from the 'project's working tree' framing.

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: 'Snapshot the project's current working tree as a named git version', with the parenthetical identifying it as the platform's version history. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_versions and get_git_status without opening any 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 when-to-use guidance ('Call this BEFORE large or risky rewrites so the change can be rolled back or reviewed later') and a when-not condition ('Read-only sessions cannot call this'). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the triggering context is explicit.

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