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

Annotations declare the write/destructive/idempotent profile, and the description goes well beyond that: omitted fields are unchanged, null is the explicit clear signal, optimistic concurrency via expectedUpdatedAt, the ticket_conflict recovery path, requestId idempotency semantics, permission requirement, and side effects (reporter notifications, agent starts). That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Six tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then semantics, then preconditions, then side effects. No filler, and each clause carries operational information.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers concurrency control, conflict recovery, idempotency, permissions, destructive side effects, and the unsupported operation. An agent has everything needed to call it safely without opening 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 description coverage is 0% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does for the hardest ones: null-clearing semantics for assigneeUserId/dueAt/startsAt/agentRepositoryId, the origin and role of expectedUpdatedAt, and retry semantics for requestId. It leaves title, description, priority, position, columnId, projectId, and cardId to be inferred from names and constraints alone, so it falls short of full coverage.

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 and enumerates the three distinct operations it covers (edit fields, move status/column, reorder), which cleanly separates it from create_ticket, get_ticket, and delete_ticket_comment. It also rules out attachment uploads, implicitly routing that need to a sibling.

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 prerequisites and routing: fetch expectedUpdatedAt from get_ticket, re-read on ticket_conflict, reuse requestId only for identical retries, and requires tickets:write. The 'Uploads are not supported' line is a concrete when-not-to-use exclusion.

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