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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by explaining that the answer is stored with the item, the card is resolved, the next planning run reads it, and a second answer to the same round is refused. It also documents the authorization model (active workspace owner's personal connection; workspace key or non-owner refused), paused-project behavior, and that refusals return ok=false with a refusal_code and store nothing.

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 and trigger are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence supplies distinct operational value (storage, idempotency, auth, pause state, refusal shape). It is dense but not padded, though the auth/refusal block could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given the mutation semantics and owner-only auth, the description covers everything an agent needs: trigger source, answer length/uniqueness constraints, single-use behavior, permission requirements, paused-state handling, and refusal signaling.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It adds the critical `answer_md` semantics (one answer covering every question, 1–4,000 characters) and implies `escalation_id` comes from the `list_escalations` row, but never names the field or its format explicitly, leaving a small gap.

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 ('Answer an open planning question and release its roadmap item') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `resolve_escalation` ('does not answer a planning question'). The trigger row reason `expand_needs_clarification` makes it unambiguous which escalation type it handles.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (a `list_escalations` row with reason `expand_needs_clarification` whose `next_tool` names this tool) and when not to (resolve_escalation does not answer a planning question). It also gives the shape of a valid call: one answer covering all questions, 1–4,000 characters.

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