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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds a concrete behavior: it 'Overwrites vdd/tactics.md'. This specifies exactly what is destroyed, which is meaningful beyond the boolean annotation. It also discloses the dependency on strategy.md, but doesn't detail other potential side effects like modifying repository state.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it produces, that it overwrites, and when to run it. Information is front-loaded, no filler, and the constraints are concise. This is tight and efficient.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: purpose, output file, destructive action, ordering, and hardware prerequisite. It doesn't explain how the various parameters (taskId, feature, researchFindings, etc.) interact, but those are documented in the schema. Given the complexity, this is reasonably complete but could mention input relationships.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented. The description adds a small amount of context (e.g., action item format 'A-001, A-002') that relates to actionItemId, but it does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Audit'), resource ('existing codebase'), and output artifact ('vdd/tactics.md'), and enumerates the exact contents. It also positions the tool within a phase ('VDD Phase 3') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its position between vdd_strategize and vdd_specify.

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 explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires vdd/strategy.md'), ordering ('run after vdd_strategize and before vdd_specify'), and a conditional check ('check with vdd_detect_environment first if the host may lack one'). This gives agents unambiguous when-to-use guidance and names the relevant sibling tool.

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