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

Annotations already declare the write/mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description usefully adds the closed action set and the conditional parameter requirements per action, but says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to dependent state on cancel/block.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the action contract. No filler, though the per-action conditionals are packed into a single run-on sentence that could be enumerated more readably.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the action/parameter contract is fully specified. Gaps remain around state-transition legality (which actions are valid from which current status) and side effects on the project, but the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but several schema descriptions are misleading copy-paste artifacts (reason described as 'for the deletion', action described generically as a filter). The description corrects this by specifying which parameters are required for which action values, adding genuine semantics beyond the schema.

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) and resource (project TODO's status), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like list_memory_todos or get_project_context. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer (e.g. complete_memory_todo or propose_todo_mutation), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 enumerates the valid action values and the per-action prerequisites, which implies when each mode applies. However, it never states when to use this tool versus complete_memory_todo, propose_todo_mutation, or create_memory_todo, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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