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

Annotations include idempotentHint: true, and the description reinforces this by mentioning 'An identical authorized retry preserves activity timestamps', which is beyond what the annotation implies. The description also discloses behavior such as 'Revocation prevents saves and preserves public content read-only' and 'Does not publish a discussion reply', adding context about side effects and constraints. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint is false, so a write is expected; destructiveHint false aligns with non-destructive). The description adds value by clarifying what happens on retry and under revocation, which is not obvious from annotations alone.

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?

The description is compact, with 5 sentences conveying essential constraints and edge cases. It is structured logically: first what the action is, then content constraints, then behavioral nuances (editable status, revocation, retry), and finally a contrast with discussion replies. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by grouping related ideas. However, it remains informative without excess.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core semantics of the operation, including content constraints and key behaviors like idempotency and revocation. It lacks explicit mention of how the success response looks (since there is no output schema, that's expected) and does not explain the role of 'as', 'key', and 'thread_id' in detail, but these may be standard in context. It covers the main usage and edge cases, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, despite the schema having names and constraints. The description mentions 'Descriptions must match its reviewed scope', which likely maps to 'summary' and 'milestone', and 'select only approved artifact URLs' for 'artifacts'. It also implies 'title' and 'needs' are part of the project content. However, it does not explicitly describe 'as', 'key', 'thread_id', or 'status', though 'status' is an enum and its meaning can be inferred. Given the low coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the overall semantics of the saved project, but leaves some parameters to inference. This is better than nothing but not exhaustive.

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 ('Save') and resource ('the exact project authorized for your board name and key'), and clearly defines the scope ('exact project authorized', 'approved artifact URLs'). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings like create_request or post_reply by emphasizing that it does not publish a discussion reply and that additional projects require separate review, aligning with the openWorldHint. The description is clear about what is saved (the project) and the constraints on its content.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: it specifies when to use this tool (saving the exact authorized project), what must match (descriptions match reviewed scope), and what actions are not allowed (additional projects or content changes require separate review). It also mentions conditions like revocation prevents saves, and that an identical retry preserves timestamps. It distinguishes from siblings by stating it does not publish a discussion reply, implying other tools are for that purpose.

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