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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only), and the description adds real behavioral context on top of that: the idempotent no-op behavior, the lifecycle/scope rule that entries belong to the plan and survive document archive/delete, cross-document visibility via boundDocuments, and the side effect that the row goes to review.

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 action, then prerequisites, alternatives, and scope. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct routing or behavioral information, with only minor overlap on the reference naming already in the 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the prerequisite dependency, alternative tools, idempotency, and the plan-vs-document ownership model plus the review side effect. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents row resolution, step numbering, entry identification, and the reference format. The description restates REF-code/item-id naming and the chip/citation-format behavior, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Attach file evidence to a Test Plan entry (or one of its test steps)') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming traceable_library_add_reference and traceable_test_plan_evidence_upload. An agent can distinguish it from evidence_upload and evidence_remove without opening a 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 explicit routing: add the reference first with traceable_library_add_reference, upload new files with traceable_test_plan_evidence_upload, and notes that re-attaching existing evidence is a no-op. Prerequisites, alternatives, and edge conditions are all covered.

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