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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context those annotations cannot: the evidence is a Reference Library item the document references, it renders as a citation-format chip, and the Test Plan row is moved to review as a side effect. It does not say what happens when removing evidence that another step also uses, which is the remaining gap.

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-loads the operation and scope, then the prerequisite, then the alternative, then the side effect. Every sentence routes the agent or warns it; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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 nested, six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the sibling alternative, and the review-state side effect. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first try.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns the raise by constraining the 'reference' parameter to an already-existing Reference Library item identified by REF code or item id rather than an arbitrary value. It also clarifies that evidence attaches either at entry level or at a numbered step, which explains why the optional 'step' parameter exists.

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 pair (add/remove) plus the resource (file evidence on a Test Plan entry or its test steps), and distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings by name. An agent can tell this apart from traceable_test_plan_evidence_upload and traceable_library_add_reference 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?

Explicit when-and-when-not routing: it names the prerequisite ('add the reference first with traceable_library_add_reference') and the alternative for a different case ('To upload a new image or file, use traceable_test_plan_evidence_upload'). Both conditions that select a sibling tool are stated rather than implied.

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