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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that lineage/prerequisites/dependents are transferred, the old task is cancelled with supersession provenance, and nothing is marked delivered. It leaves out the openWorldHint=true implication and any permission/idempotency caveat, but with annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a strong addition.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded on the core action, with side effects following. No filler, no restated name/title. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the lifecycle effects (transfer, cancel, provenance) are described well. But for a destructive, open-world, 6-required-parameter mutation with zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete — the required new content inputs are entirely unaddressed.

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% across 6 required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions title, body_md, decision_md, or acceptance_criteria — all required inputs an agent must supply — leaving the meaning and format of every parameter undocumented.

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 precise verb+resource ('Replace an unretryable blocked task') and immediately differentiates from the close sibling by qualifying the task as 'unretryable' — which is exactly the condition separating this from retry_blocked_task. An agent can pick between the two without opening a 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?

The 'unretryable' qualifier strongly implies when to use this rather than retry_blocked_task, and the description names the replacement semantics. However, it never names retry_blocked_task as the alternative or states an explicit exclusion, so the routing is implied rather than declared.

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