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

Annotations only provide negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that an epic may hold multiple slots, overlaps are allowed by design, and a Pro or trial workspace is required. This goes beyond the schema and is useful for anticipating side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no fluff. The behavioral caveat and workspace requirement each earn their place without restating schema content.

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 create tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the important non-schema context: multiple slots, overlap tolerance, the need to check list_roadmap_slots when extending, and the Pro requirement. It does not describe the return value, but that gap is modest given the absence of an output 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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds only 'optionally with assignees' and the date-range framing, which is helpful but not a major compensation for missing schema detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule an epic on the project roadmap: a slot from start_date to end_date'. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by framing it as adding a slot, and even contrasts it with extending an existing one.

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('Schedule an epic on the project roadmap'), a when-not-to-use signal ('check list_roadmap_slots first if you mean to extend an existing slot rather than add one'), and a prerequisite (Pro or trial workspace). It doesn't explicitly name update_roadmap_slot as the alternative, but the guidance is otherwise unambiguous.

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