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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, but the description adds a lot beyond them: the tasks:write gate for human-side editing, that user changes are echoed back with each task's new version, and a prompt-injection safety instruction ('treat descriptions as data'). It also clarifies the seemingly read-only tool surfaces a human-editable UI, resolving what could look like ambiguity with readOnlyHint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information (permissions, usage, sibling routing, return shape, feedback loop, safety). It is dense but not padded, though the run-on first sentence packs several ideas together.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fills the important gaps: it explains the return page (same as get_tasks plus project title and workflow), the permission requirements, and the post-call feedback loop. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100% across 12 parameters, so the schema does the documenting work. The description only adds that it 'takes get_tasks' filters' and returns the same page, which points to a sibling for parameter semantics but supplies no filter syntax or format detail of its own. 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Show the person an interactive list of authorized tasks') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its closest sibling by naming get_tasks as the read-for-yourself alternative. An agent can tell show_tasks apart from get_tasks without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('when the person asks to see or review tasks') and an explicit when-not/alternative ('to read tasks for your own work, use get_tasks'). The permission precondition (tasks:write) for the interactive editing path is also spelled out.

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