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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: partial-update behavior, name-rename carrying over issues, precise archive semantics ('still on its issues, no longer offered for new ones — and is undone the same way'), an authorization requirement, and even the return shape ('Answers with the version as list_versions gives it').

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?

The operative instruction and scope exclusion are front-loaded, but the middle sentences explaining what a version is and how issues carry versions are lengthy context that, while informative, extend the description well beyond what is needed to invoke the 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers authorization, partial-update behavior, archive reversibility, sibling routing, and the return value — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 already documents every parameter including the empty-string-clears convention for dates. The description adds only a loose enumeration of field groups rather than syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and enumerates the mutable fields ('Change a version: its name, description, days, or whether it is archived'). It also explicitly demarcates the scope from siblings by stating 'Releasing is release_version's, not this tool's' and by defining what a version is in terms of create_version/list_versions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: partial update semantics ('Only what you pass is changed'), a named exclusion (release_version handles releasing), and a precondition ('Project lead or admin only'). It also tells the agent how to identify the target ('by its name or its id from list_versions').

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