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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the change is DB-only and does NOT rewrite plan markdown, which is real side-effect information. However it omits permissions, idempotency/reversibility, and what happens when ordinals don't exist.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the DB-only caveat front-loaded, then the id-format hint. No filler, though the parenthetical could be slightly tighter.

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 small two-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes, the DB-only scope, and id semantics. It still leaves gaps around auth requirements, validation of ordinals, and the resulting state, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 does partially by explaining that scenarioOrdinalIds/userStoryOrdinalIds are the numeric parts of TS-<n>/US-<n>. It still omits that both are arrays, optional, and that at least one is presumably needed.

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 and resource (mark user stories/test scenarios implementation-complete) and even names the boundary 'platform lifecycle (DB only)'. It is clear about what is affected, though it never names the closest sibling update-plan-items-lifecycle-status to differentiate the two.

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 implies when this applies (implementation-complete in the platform lifecycle) and gives id-format guidance, but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus update-plan-items-lifecycle-status or update-test-scenario. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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