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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description supports these with concrete behavior: it parses frontmatter (id, title, priority), updates both the linked support file and entity, and optionally records an UPDATED Activity via agentTraceability. It never spells out what the destructive update overwrites, but the sync semantics are well conveyed.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the error-routing detail immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though the frontmatter parsing and traceability details could be trimmed slightly.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: the required id, the error behavior, what gets updated, and the inline traceability record. Gaps remain around credential requirements and what the destructive update replaces, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly in the happy path.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. It mentions the agentTraceability object inline and implies the frontmatter fields, but the many provenance parameters (gitSha, userId, actorType, workflowId, cliVersion, etc.) are explained nowhere. The one required param, content, is only indirectly described.

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 ('Sync a user story markdown file to the platform after local edits') and scopes the operation to post-edit syncing. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming create-user-story as the tool to call when the id is missing.

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?

Pinpoints the triggering condition ('after local edits') and explains the fallback path: a missing frontmatter id errors and routes the agent to create-user-story. It never states when not to use it or how it relates to get-user-stories, so it stops short of the explicit exclusion case.

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