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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: both Jams display the link, the target shows an inverse label, re-marking with the same type is a no-op, it returns the relation, and it requires a permission level that ranks with editing a Jam's title. However, the idempotency claim substantially overlaps idempotentHint and the destructiveHint=false write behavior is only implied, so the incremental value is solid but not exceptional.

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 purpose clause followed by type semantics, side effects, usage examples, and permission requirements - every sentence contributes. Some sentences are long and pack multiple facts, but nothing is filler.

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?

Covers the enum behavior, side effects on both Jams, idempotency, permission prerequisite, and return value, so an agent has what it needs to call it correctly despite no output schema. Only the absence of explicit guidance for the reverse operation (markUnrelated) leaves a small 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what fixes, proves, and relates_to actually signify and confirms both Jams must belong to the same team. The intent and llm_model params remain unexplained, which is fine given their schema text.

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 ('Mark a Jam as related to another Jam of the same team') and then defines the three relation types, their meanings, and the default. An agent can distinguish this from markUnrelated or updateJam from the description alone.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: record a Jam that proves a fix, or connect a set of Jams covering one flow such as one Jam per UI state. It does not explicitly name markUnrelated as the alternative for disconnecting, so routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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