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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required actor role and the emitted goal.done milestone, which tells the agent this has downstream effects. It still omits whether completion is reversible or how the result field is used.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the side effect appended. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 0% parameter coverage, the description conveys purpose, actor, and milestone emission but leaves parameter meaning undocumented. It is adequate to call the tool but leaves gaps an agent would want filled.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to compensate. 'by' is only vaguely implied by the '(creator/orchestrator)' parenthetical, while 'result' and 'team_id' are never explained, leaving the agent to guess their 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a team goal complete'. The parenthetical adds the calling role (creator/orchestrator) and the side effect (goal.done milestone). It does not name a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 '(creator/orchestrator)' note hints at who may call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use condition, no distinction from siblings like update_task or resolve_task, and no when-not guidance. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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