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

Annotations already signal destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior with destructiveHint=truedar. The description adds valuable context by explaining the strict contract: the preview_token is tied to EXACTLY these operations and this document_version, and a save cannot happen without previewing. It also discloses the return value (updated description plus new document_version).

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?

Both sentences earn their place: the first states the action and target, the second adds the critical prerequisite and return value. The text is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key workflow context, the mandatory preview step, and the return data. It does not discuss error conditions or the exact AHM format, but annotations and schema already provide a solid baseline for a tool with this specificity.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the parameters and their roles. The description reinforces that operations and document_version must match the preview exactly, but it adds little beyond what the schema already conveys about the token source and version semantics.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: apply a previously previewed description update to a card or epic. It distinguishes itself from generic update_card/update_epic by emphasizing the mandatory preview_token prerequisite and the two-step workflow.F

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 explicitly names preview_description_update as the source of the required token and states that saving without previewing is impossible, which communicates when this tool must be used. It does not explicitly exclude generic update_card/update_epic as alternatives, but the preview requirement effectively does so.

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