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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true): it discloses exactly what is carried over (tasks become loose tasks, subtasks rise to loose tasks), what is preserved (requester, owner, security, leader, chain of command), how budget is derived, and the rejection conditions. It also documents the mandatory Ed25519 request signing and per-transport behavior, which an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core semantics, then clearly sectioned (SPIN OUT / AUTH / TRANSPORT), so it is easy to scan. The transport paragraph is heavy for a two-parameter tool and repeats detail that is generic to all signed tools, but every section is still actionable.

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 destructive, auth-gated mutation with no output schema, it covers what the tool does, what it rejects, who may call it, and how to sign the request. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral context (requester-gating, the carried budget behind tier0_approval) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('a GOAL or TASK leaves its project to become a PROJECT of its own') and immediately contrasts it with the inverse operation (nesting a project as a goal), so an agent can distinguish it from set_node_parent and set_hierarchy without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and exclusions: 'Rejects settled/submitted work and a task someone is working on' and 'Requester-gated on the source project.' The inverse-of-nesting framing implies the alternative but never names a sibling tool to use instead, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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