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

With annotations already flagging non-read-only, open-world and non-idempotent behavior, the description still adds real traits beyond them: a replay guard, verification of delivered prerequisites, exactly one bounded expand retry, id/dependency preservation, resolution of matching cards in a single transaction, and a bounded live GitHub check that can reach out even when nothing changes. It stops short of permissions, auth, or failure-mode disclosure.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add operational detail. Backtick-heavy domain jargon adds density but little waste; the whole is appropriately sized for the operation's complexity.

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. For a single-parameter, transaction-scoped mutation the description covers preconditions, semantics, and external-call behavior adequately; only the id's source and error behavior are absent.

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 the parameter meaning, and it does: escalation_id is scoped to two escalation kinds, effectively an implicit enum beyond the bare string type. It does not say where to obtain the id, but it meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.

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 names a specific action (re-arm) on a specific resource (a roadmap item's same-item dependency) keyed by an escalation id, and elaborates the concrete steps (verify prerequisites, grant one expand retry, resolve cards). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts a sibling such as cancel_roadmap_item or retry_blocked_task.

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?

The statement that escalation_id must be an expand_produced_nothing or roadmap_item_parked id implies when the tool applies, which is useful precondition context. However there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no routing against alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the scenario.

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