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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description goes well beyond that: in multi-member rikmas, website and Facebook changes open a member vote where silence approves on clock expiry, while other links change directly. That voting/approval semantics is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 action and target, then layers permission and voting behavior, ending with a docs link. Dense but every sentence carries information; the trailing docs URL is the only mild padding.

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 covers action, target, permissions, and the vote-vs-direct distinction well. It stops short of describing the response (e.g., whether a proposal id is returned when a vote opens), which an agent invoking a mutation tool would benefit from.

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 schema itself documents url (empty string clears), kind (enum), and projectId. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pair (set or clear) and the exact resource (one of a rikma's named links), enumerating the link kinds. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like listProjectResourcesTool or createProjectTool immediately.

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 explicit sequencing guidance ('Check listProjectResourcesTool first - the link may already be there') and a gate ('Members only'), plus the condition that triggers a vote. It stops short of stating when not to use the tool, but the routing context is clear.

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