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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive write operation. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about using the created deliverable's id to link tasks, but does not disclose return format, idempotency, or permission requirements. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by a relevant integration tip. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple create tool with complete parameter descriptions and annotations, the description plus structured data are sufficient. It covers the essential post-creation step, though it could explicitly mention that the created deliverable's id is returned.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for name, status, or workspace_id; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Crea un entregable' (Creates a deliverable). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_deliverable or get_deliverables, but the create action is clear.

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?

It provides a usage hint for linking tasks after creation ('pasá su id en deliverable_id...'), but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_deliverable. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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