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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the platform-issued id precondition, explicit error behavior ("Missing id returns an error telling you to call create-user-story first"), side effects (updates the linked support file AND entity), and that agentTraceability records an UPDATED Activity inline. What is missing is auth/permission requirements and what happens on partial failures or conflicting versions.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and precondition, then side effects and the optional traceability behavior. No filler, though the frontmatter-field enumeration could be trimmed or pushed to the schema.

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 13-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, error handling, side effects, and the optional nested parameter's effect. It leaves auth requirements and the many tracing parameters undocumented, 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% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it defines the content payload's expected structure (frontmatter with id, title, priority) and the purpose of the optional agentTraceability object. The remaining ten telemetry-ish parameters (gitSha, userId, actorType, agentModel, branchName, cliVersion, policyFile, workflowId, skillVersion, policyVersion, workflowExecutionId) are left entirely to 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Sync a user story markdown file to the platform after local edits") with the operative mode of operation (sync, not create) made explicit. It also disambiguates from the create-user-story sibling by describing the frontmatter id requirement and the error path. An agent can distinguish this from create-user-story and update-test-scenario without opening any schema.

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?

States the triggering condition ("after local edits") and names the alternative (create-user-story) with the condition that selects it (missing frontmatter id). It does not describe when this tool should NOT be used, nor other update siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance but the core when/when-else is present.

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