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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare readOnly=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that a draft artifact is created and routed to the Agent inbox, that the return value is an artifact id plus conversation id, and the plan gate (aiCore) and access level (any project member). That is exactly the mutation-side context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and window come first, then source-of-sections, output shape, edge case, return value, and gate/access. Every clause carries information, though the single long run-on could be tightened.

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 present, the description compensates by enumerating the output sections (summary, changes by area, known issues, next planned work), the empty-window behavior, and the returned ids. Combined with the access and plan-gate notes, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents projectId fully. The description references 'a project' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters.

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+resource (generate structured release notes for a project) and pins down the exact input scope (tasks marked done in the last 30 days, grouped by epic/theme). This scope naturally separates it from neighbors like compose_status_digest and compose_meeting_brief.

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 clear context for use: current-window work, delivery to the Agent inbox for review, and the plan-gate/access conditions. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or an exclusion case, so it stops short of a 5.

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