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

Annotations only state the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds the state-dependent refusal rule that annotations cannot express, plus an explicit scope boundary against completion marking. It does not address the non-idempotent hint (whether saving the same statement twice duplicates criteria), leaving one behavioral question open.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core definition is front-loaded ahead of the constraint. The middle sentence ('refused until an accepted add_criterion suggestion') is compressed enough to require a re-read, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the state guard plus scope boundary are covered. What remains missing is any parameter guidance and any statement about duplicate saves on a non-idempotent write, which is a noticeable gap for a three-required-param mutation tool.

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 0% and the description never mentions the three required parameters (milestoneSetId, milestoneId, statement), not even the 500-character statement limit or its expected content. With zero schema-side documentation and no compensating prose, an agent must infer all parameter meaning from names alone.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Save one acceptance criterion') and immediately defines the domain meaning ('what done means for that milestone'), which lets an agent separate it from record_criterion_met or declare_milestone_complete. The closing clause explicitly rules out a sibling's behavior: 'This does not mark the milestone complete.'

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 a real usage condition and a when-not: after milestones are approved, new criteria are refused until an accepted add_criterion suggestion. It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and alternatives like save_deliverable or suggest_milestone_change, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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