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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds action-specific constraints and explicitly says it is a consolidation of legacy tools, which clarifies its behavioral scope. It does not detail failure modes or side effects, but the status transition semantics are sufficiently clear.

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 concise sentences cover the purpose, action list, per-action requirements, and legacy replacement. Every sentence is information-dense with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple conditional actions), the description is thorough. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or idempotency, but annotations and the action rules provide a complete picture for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It defines the allowed action values (absent from schema enums), specifies conditional required parameters (assignee_agent_id for assign, reason for block), and clarifies the optional note for complete. The schema descriptions are generic or even misleading (reason mentions 'deletion'), so the description compensates fully.

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 clearly states 'Transition a project TODO's status', using a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact action values (accept, assign, block, unblock, complete, cancel) and differentiates from the legacy tools it consolidates.

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 names the legacy tools it replaces ('Consolidates the legacy accept/assign/block/unblock/complete/cancel_project_todo tools'), telling the agent to use this tool instead. It also provides per-action requirements (e.g., assignee_agent_id for assign, reason for block, note for complete), defining when to use each action.

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