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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that rows are saved verbatim with no second model rewriting them, that nothing is actually created (only proposals the user approves at the returned reviewUrl), that invalid rows come back in `rejected`, and that `error.retryable` signals whether a retry helps. The idempotentHint=false annotation is given real meaning by the 'proposal' framing.

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-loads the defining constraint and the sibling routing, and every sentence carries information. It is dense but no sentence is wasted; slightly long for a single paragraph, though appropriate given the schema complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the return surface (reviewUrl, `rejected`, `error.retryable`), the save semantics, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 the field descriptions are already detailed, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that every row needs both name and descrip and that violating this yields `rejected` rows, but it adds little else beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Create a planning board') plus the key qualifier 'from rows YOU already structured,' which immediately separates it from the AI-generating sibling planProjectWorkTool.

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?

Explicitly names the condition that selects this tool ('when the conversation already holds the breakdown') and the alternative with its own condition ('Use planProjectWorkTool instead when the user only has a loose idea in free text'). Also states the projectId prerequisite.

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