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

Annotations mark this as a non-destructive write with no open-world access, so safety is largely covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it appears as an ordinary comment, is tracked in a Questions list until answered, requires comment permission, and what the deadline does with and without defaultOption. It doesn't say what happens on withdrawal or how the asker is notified, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then behavior, then permissions and the sibling caveat. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the closing NOTE is slightly long but earns its place by preventing confusion with the background-agent ledger tool.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, who sees it, tracking, permission requirements, and deadline semantics — enough to invoke correctly. Minor gaps (notification behavior, withdrawal outcome) remain but are not essential to a correct call.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds motivation rather than restating syntax — explaining that defaultOption plus the deadline lets a blocked run resume, and that the deadline only stops waiting when no default exists — which clarifies the intent of the most consequential parameter.

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 concrete verb and resource (ask one person a question with pre-written answer options in an issue thread) and immediately distinguishes it from a plain comment ('tracked separately', counted in the Questions list). An agent can tell exactly what it creates and how it differs from the comment-stream siblings without opening the 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?

Gives clear context for use ('the way to get a decision that does not get lost in the comment stream') and steers the ttlHours/defaultOption choice (defaultOption lets a blocked run continue; ttlHours 0 rarely what an agent wants). It distinguishes from the bgs 'ask_question' tool but does not explicitly name the closer siblings answer_issue_question / withdraw_issue_question, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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