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

Goes well beyond the annotations by scoping side effects precisely ('saved as suggested directions only: nothing is created, and no mission, chore or resource comes out of this call'), naming the returned reviewUrl as the approval surface, and disclosing failure semantics ('error.retryable' indicates whether a retry can help). This clarifies what the non-readOnly, non-idempotent hints actually mean in practice.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the triggering conditions, side effects and failure handling. Dense and purposeful, though the docs URL and failure clause make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still names the key output artifact (reviewUrl) and the approval flow that consumes it, plus retryability on failure. It stops short of saying how many directions come back or what the failure payloads look like, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description merely restates 'Requires a projectId' without adding format, sourcing or validation detail, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('cheaply scan a project's real current state and propose DIRECTIONS') and explicitly narrows scope ('strategic angles, not task lists'), which separates it from siblings like planProjectWorkTool, createTaskTool and createPlanBoardTool that produce concrete work items.

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?

Names the triggering situation verbatim (open-ended 'what should we do next?' / 'how do we move this forward?' with no specific goal stated) and routes the follow-up work to a different path — opening the returned reviewUrl to break a direction into missions. Explicit when-to-use plus a named next step.

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