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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (not read-only, not idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add more, and it does: input validation that rejects abstract steps and a warning behavior for non-blocking preparation. It stops short of saying whether steps are appended to or replace existing ones, or what a rejection response looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the quoted example earns its space by making 'concrete' operational. The closing 'hard-lever' sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic without prior context.

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 tool with a nested step array, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers content quality well but leaves the parameter contract and the return/failure behavior unexplained. An agent knows what a good step looks like but not how to populate the fields or interpret the result.

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 milestoneId, the step object shape, or why leverId and estimateMin exist. The 'few work blocks' phrasing hints at estimate sizing and 'hard-lever' hints at leverId, but both are too oblique to guide an agent filling in those fields.

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 and resource ('Add concrete steps to a milestone') and immediately disambiguates what a step is versus an abstract task, which separates it from edit_step/delete_step conceptually. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like set_milestones or next_steps, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 concrete inclusion criteria ('fits a few work blocks'), an explicit exclusion ('abstract steps are rejected'), plus ordering guidance (hard-lever first, prep only where it blocks). It does not say when to use this versus next_steps or set_plan, so the alternative-routing is absent.

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