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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the category drives product inference, and the new status lands at the end. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand consequences.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, why category matters, and where the new status lands with a pointer to reorder_states. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: category semantics and default placement. It doesn't mention return value or error cases, but those are less critical for a create operation with full schema coverage. The pointer to reorder_states completes the workflow context.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaning for 'category' by explaining it drives product inference, which is valuable. However, it doesn't add much for name, team, or color beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('status to a team board'), and clarifies that it creates a workflow state. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_state, delete_state, and reorder_states by noting the new status lands at the end and pointing to reorder_states for placement.

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?

The description gives clear context: it's for adding a status to a team board, and it explicitly says to use reorder_states to place it. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it versus update_state or delete_state, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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