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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the entry belongs to the plan (not the document) and survives document archive/delete, validation and limits match the editor, result is derived from steps when a protocol has steps, and "" clears a value. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 payload shape, then scope, then columns, then step behavior, then cross-references. Dense and long, but nearly every clause carries actionable information; the column list is lengthy though necessary given the free-form fields map.

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?

Mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description covers scope persistence, validation parity with the editor, derived-vs-explicit result rules, the review state, agent-inapplicable signature, and where evidence belongs. Nothing material is left for the agent to 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 100% but the `fields` map is a free-form string map with no key/value constraints, so the description carries the real semantics: it enumerates every valid column and its allowed values (decision include|exclude, result pass|fail|"", resolution passed|failed|passed_with_deviation|failure_accepted) and redefines the `step` field set. This compensates for enums absent from the schema.

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: 'Record data in one Test Plan entry', with the primary payload shape ({column: value}). It is clearly separable from traceable_test_plan_read (retrieval) and traceable_test_plan_evidence_add (evidence), which it names.

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?

Routes evidence work to traceable_test_plan_evidence_add explicitly, states that the Tester signature cannot be applied by an agent, and notes the row goes to review — all conditions an agent needs to decide whether this is the right call and what will happen next.

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