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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful lifecycle context: calling it twice plans the document twice, and the placeholder's cardId is the bridge to traceable_doc_create. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but the annotations lower the burden and the added context is substantive.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then duplicate behavior, then integration with traceable_doc_create, and finally a caveat about non-placeholder cards. Every sentence contributes to correct selection or invocation, with no filler.

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 output schema, the description covers purpose, required and optional inputs, duplicate behavior, and the follow-up workflow. It implies the placeholder's cardId is the returned handle but does not explicitly state return values or error conditions; that is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description largely repeats that guidance, noting placement is a cell's phaseId and workstreamId from traceable_board_read and that position 0 is the top, but it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: planning a document as a placeholder card on a project's board. It distinguishes this from writing an actual document via traceable_doc_create and from placing a card that already holds a document. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

It gives explicit routing: use this to plan a not-yet-written document, then pass the placeholder's cardId as placeholderId to traceable_doc_create. It also provides a when-not-to-use rule: a card that holds a document is not a placeholder and should be moved with the document's placement instead. Nothing essential is left to inference.

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