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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'full authorization controls' (too vague to be actionable) and describes the blocked_by dependency semantics, though those semantics are largely restated from the schema. It never states what is returned or whether authorization failures surface as errors.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the dependency rule. The second sentence is largely recoverable from the schema, so it does not fully earn its place, keeping this just below a 5.

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 15-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description omits what the caller gets back (e.g., the new piece's relative id), how authorization failures manifest, and any prerequisites beyond a valid account_code. The schema carries the parameter burden well, but the surrounding behavior is thin.

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 all 15 parameters are already documented, including the additive/all-or-nothing behavior of blocked_by_relative_ids. The description's dependency sentence repeats that schema text rather than adding new meaning (e.g., ordering, idempotency, or how to resolve relative ids). Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (work items: Tasks, Stories, Epics, Recurents) in the named system, and is easily distinguished from siblings like UpdatePieceTool or ListPiecesTool. An agent knows immediately what this tool produces.

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?

Usage is implied by the create semantics, but the description never says when to prefer this over UpdatePieceTool for existing pieces, nor does it name any alternative for dependency management (ManageBlockerLinksTool is only mentioned for removal, not for initial linking). No explicit when-not conditions.

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