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

Annotations only cover write-ness (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that an issue already linked to a DIFFERENT goal is skipped and reported rather than silently reassigned. It also explains the downstream effect: linked issues become the goal's resolved/total progress when no metric_key or manual_total exists — context no annotation supplies.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the selection modes and edge-case behavior. Slightly dense, but every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers selection, skip-not-steal behavior, the reassign condition, and progress semantics well. Minor gaps remain around what the call returns (counts of linked/skipped) and unlink confirmation, though dry_run is covered in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the three selection strategies and gives a concrete category example ('aeo'), and ties reassign to the deliberate move-intent. It stops short of documenting unlink/dry_run semantics, which live only in 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 — rolling fix-queue issues up to a goal — with the added framing that it makes the queue answer 'why am I doing this?'. An agent can distinguish it from sibling goal tools (create_goal, update_goal, goal_metrics, content_for_goal) at a glance.

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 selection modes (explicit issue_ids, rule_keys, or category) and an explicit conditional instruction: 'pass reassign=true only when you mean to move it.' It does not name a competing sibling tool or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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