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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and non-read-only. The description adds genuine detail beyond them: the frontmatter precondition, the error-and-redirect behavior, that linking is updated when the story changes, and that agentTraceability writes an UPDATED Activity inline. Auth specifics (projectApiKey) live in the schema rather than the description, so it's not a 5.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then prerequisites, error behavior, and the optional traceability note. Little filler; the error clause is the only slightly verbose part.

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?

The core workflow (frontmatter requirement, error redirect, linking update, traceability side effect) is well covered and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 15-parameter tool with a nested object and 13% schema coverage, most parameters remain unexplained, leaving an agent guessing on traceability metadata fields.

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 only 13%, so the description must carry the load — but it covers just two parameters (the frontmatter/content input and agentTraceability) while ~10 others (gitSha, userId, actorType, model, branchName, cliVersion, policyFile, workflowId, skillVersion, policyVersion, workflowExecutionId) are undocumented in both places. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Sync a test scenario markdown file to the platform') and distinguishes it from the create path by naming create-test-scenario as the required fallback when frontmatter is missing. It's clear what the tool does, though 'sync' leaves the exact update/create semantics to be inferred from the error clause.

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 the triggering context ('after local edits'), the prerequisite ('requires frontmatter id: TS-<n> and story: US-<n>'), and the alternative route ('call create-test-scenario first'). It doesn't explicitly enumerate when NOT to use it, but the create-vs-update split is effectively conveyed.

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