Move or annotate naming candidates

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden, and it delivers: it discloses atomicity ('one atomic write'), the hard constraint that a project holds exactly one selected candidate, the side-effect of setting the project's chosen brand name upon selection, and optimistic concurrency behavior via expectedUpdatedAt. The auth requirement is also stated. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences pack a dense but clear payload: purpose, alternatives, side effects, concurrency, and auth. No filler or redundancy; front-loaded with the core action.

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 complex mutation tool with nested operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all key operational facets: what is moved, column order, atomicity, uniqueness constraint, brand-name side effect, concurrent-write protection, and scope requirement. The only minor omission is return value, but that's not essential given the tool's action-oriented nature.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds little over the schema. The description mentions passing expectedUpdatedAt from list_name_candidates, but that information already exists in the schema property description. The 'up to 100 candidates' limit mirrors schema maxItems. Thus the description provides minimal additional parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Progress up to 100 candidates through the kanban in one atomic write, and optionally replace their notes and evidence at the same time.' It explicitly contrasts with rank_name_candidates ('only reorders and leaves status alone'), making the tool's distinct purpose unambiguous. Columns are enumerated, removing any ambiguity about valid states.

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?

The description explicitly recommends this tool for 'recording a decision and why you made it' and names the alternative (rank_name_candidates) that should be used for pure reordering. It also instructs the agent to pass expectedUpdatedAt from list_name_candidates to handle concurrent modifications, and states the required auth scope (naming:write). This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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