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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the BLOCKING call order, that update-test-scenario rejects missing id/story with a clear error, and that agentTraceability records Activity inline (superseding report-agent-action here). It omits auth/permission needs and duplicate/idempotency behavior, but for a create operation this is strong disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then lays out the workflow with arrow notation that is easy to follow. It is dense but each clause adds a constraint or behavior; only the parenthetical about update-test-scenario's error slightly repeats the preceding instruction.

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 15-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema create tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical path (required inputs, path constraints, call sequence, returned content). It stops short of explaining the bulk of optional metadata params, which is the main remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it adds real meaning for three parameters: platformFilePath must be under plans/scenarios/ and end in .md, userStoryOrdinalId is the numeric part of the parent US-<n> id, and agentTraceability records Activity inline. However, the other ~12 metadata parameters (gitSha, userId, actorType, etc.) receive no explanation anywhere, so the coverage gap is only partially filled.

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+resource ('Create a test scenario') plus the side effect of allocating a real TS-<ordinalId>, and links it to a parent user story. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like update-test-scenario and get-test-scenarios.

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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: call this FIRST, write the returned content to the repo path, then call update-test-scenario with the full markdown. It names the alternative tool and the exact condition that triggers it, leaving nothing to inference.

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