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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuinely non-obvious partial-application rule: already-started components are unaffected and criteria replacement only applies to not-yet-started work. It omits auth needs, idempotency/multiple-call behavior, and what happens if the build already finished.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the scoping caveat follows immediately.

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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trickiest behavior (who is and isn't affected). It still lacks auth/permission context and failure modes, which matters more here because no annotations fill that gap.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only the replacement semantics ('replaces the original for all not-yet-started components'), which is marginal beyond the schema's own wording. 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+resource: 'Send corrected acceptance criteria to a running build.' This is clearly distinct from cancel_build, retry_build, or get_build. It does not name a sibling tool to contrast against, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear applicability condition: only components that have not started generating are affected, and the in-flight component finishes as originally scoped. This is an explicit when-not constraint, though no alternative tool is named for the excluded case.

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