write_set_role_effort

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

Annotations already mark readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds materially valuable behavior: role effort rows are written instead of card totals, task efforts roll up and overwrite the parent story's value, and parent before/after values are reported. This tells an agent exactly what side effects to expect. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second clarifies the write target, and the third discloses roll-up and reporting behavior. The description is front-loaded and appropriately dense for a mutating 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?

With two parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the important operational facts: required role, per-role array, no card-total writes, roll-up overwrite, and reported before/after values. There is enough information for an agent to decide whether to call it and anticipate side effects.

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?

The schema describes role and effort values inside the nested efforts array, but does not explain what id refers to; the description's 'on a card' supplies that missing context. It also reinforces array semantics ('one or more roles') and the required-role constraint. It doesn't enumerate format rules beyond that, but the schema already carries the value details.

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 action ('Set effort') on a well-defined resource ('one or more roles on a card') and goes beyond the name by distinguishing RoleEffort rows from the card total that Targetprocess computes. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from generic card-update or time-logging siblings.

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 clear usage context: call it when setting role-specific efforts, requires a role, and explicitly says it never writes the card total. It also warns about roll-up into the parent user story, which signals when those side effects matter. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for card-total updates, so it doesn't quite hit the explicit alternatives bar.

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