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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it clarifies the tool is read-only, returns a plan (not edits), and that the host agent applies edits and commits. It also specifies the output nature ('ordered steps') and the affected gates. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed immediately by a usage directive. Every clause earns its place—no redundancy with annotations or schema, and no extraneous detail.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description provides a complete mental model: the workflow (cascade planning), the read-only contract, the primary input parameter, and the output (ordered steps and gates). It doesn't cover every parameter, but the schema already does that. The main missing element is any mention of prerequisites like project structure validity, but that's minor for a read-only planning tool.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are described in the schema. The description adds a crucial usage hint: 'Pass the change as description', directly identifying which parameter carries the change input. This is a meaningful semantic addition beyond the schema's generic 'Freeform description input', helping the agent know which of the many freeform fields to use.

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 precise verb ('Plan'), a specific resource ('requirement-change cascade'), and scopes it clearly: 'through the whole chain', identifying the highest affected level and returning ordered update steps (V→S→T→SP→PL→TK) plus affected gates. It distinguishes itself from sibling phase-build tools by explicitly contrasting 'to build a phase from scratch' with using the phase's own tool.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use ('when a requirement changes after artifacts already exist') and when-not-to-use ('to build a phase from scratch the first time, run that phase's own tool instead'), naming the alternative category. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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