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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds only the word 'durable', which implies persistence but doesn't spell out irreversibility, whether duplicate decisions are created on retry (relevant given non-idempotent), or required permissions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It could have used its remaining space for usage guidance instead of re-listing parameters.

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 five-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it accepts. It leaves a gap around return value/ID and persistence semantics but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema with meanings matching the description's field list. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already states (e.g. actor default 'MCP').

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 ('Creates') and a specific resource ('durable project or workflow decision'), and enumerates the optional fields that can accompany it. The resource is unique among the siblings (handoff/project/sync tools), so an agent can identify it, though the description never explicitly contrasts it with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no hint about when a decision should be recorded versus a handoff or checkpoint. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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