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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, which the description implies but doesn't elaborate on. It adds the notion that a commit is a lightweight progress record (one sentence summary, optional artifact/hash), giving useful framing, but omits whether the repo must exist, whether this is permanent, and who can commit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and enumerates the payload in order of importance. Nothing extraneous.

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 and minimal annotations, the description covers the payload but omits prerequisites, permissions, and result behavior. It is adequate to understand the fields but not the operational context.

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 75% and the description restates the meaning of all four parameters (summary, artifact, hash, repo_id) at roughly the same level as the schema descriptions. It adds the 'one sentence' framing but no format or constraint details beyond the schema's '10-1000 chars'.

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?

The description states a specific verb (record) and resource (progress in a repository) with the payload shape spelled out, which is clearer than most siblings. It doesn't differentiate itself from project100_repo, project100_repos, project100_repo_join, or project100_contribute, 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus project100_repo, project100_contribute, or project100_notarize, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the repo be joined first). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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