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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully adds the entitlement gate (Startup+), the dual read/write consent requirement, and the exact-intent confirmation step — meaningful behavioral detail beyond the structured hints. It does not explain why a create carries destructiveHint=true, leaving a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the prerequisites; there is no filler. Slightly dense but every clause contributes information.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description together give a strong picture of safety and prerequisites. The only shortfall relative to the 4-parameter, nested-payload schema is the missing semantics for project_id and owner_user_id.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It covers due date, recurrence, idempotency key, and confirmation intent, but says nothing about project_id, owner_user_id, or the required title field, leaving several inputs unexplained.

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 ('Create an owned obligation') and names scoping attributes (explicit due date and recurrence). It does not name the sibling it differs from, but the closing sentence about 'changing an existing record' implicitly contrasts it with founder_ops.update_obligation. A clear purpose, though sibling differentiation is only inferred.

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 real preconditions for use: Startup tier or higher, both read and write consent, a stable idempotency key, and exact-intent confirmation. That is strong context for when this tool can be invoked, but it never explicitly states when to prefer update_obligation or other alternatives, 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.