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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: direction matters per relation, and has_design/has_diagram/has_process are normalised to work item → design/diagram/process. It omits what happens on duplicate links or error behavior, so 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints and alternatives in a single dense paragraph. Every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical lists of types and relation names are partly redundant with the enum definitions.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers direction semantics, normalization, same-project scope, and sibling routing. Missing is what the tool returns (link object/id) and duplicate/conflict behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 coverage is only 50% and the three enums carry no descriptions, but the description compensates by explaining relation direction with concrete examples (test_case —covers→ story, adr —affects→ story, test_case —verifies_defect→ defect) and giving a metadata example. The re-listing of type/relation values duplicates the enum and is redundant.

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 and scope: 'Create a cross-module traceability link between two entities in the same project.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming create_story_relation and create_test_case_from_ac as the right tools for specific cases.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away for two cases: covers_ac with metadata should prefer stride.create_test_case_from_ac, and story↔story BLOCKS/DEPENDS_ON/RELATED_TO must use stride.create_story_relation. The same-project constraint is also stated.

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