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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description's added value is the state-machine disclosure: this tool transitions among three named states with different per-action requirements. It stops short of describing the side effects of supersede/reopen beyond the required inputs.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with the core verb and immediately followed by the valid action set. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description completes the picture for the resolve/supersede paths, but leaves the reopen path's required inputs unstated relative to an 8-parameter 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by mapping conditional dependencies (resolution -> resolve; new_context plus optional options_json/impact_level/resolution_note -> supersede) that the flat schema does not express. It does not clarify what action='reopen' consumes.

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 (transition) plus resource (project decision) and enumerates the exact actions: resolve, supersede, reopen. This is far more than a restatement of the title, though it never explicitly positions itself against siblings like update_project_todo or the proposal tools.

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?

Provides genuine conditional guidance -- resolution is required for action='resolve' and new_context for action='supersede' -- which tells the agent how to invoke each mode. However it gives no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and never mentions what 'reopen' requires or when each transition is appropriate.

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