remember

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the write bar is covered minimally. The description adds that the result is returned as a Proposal payload, but it is ambiguous whether the item is actually persisted or merely staged, and it discloses nothing about permissions, side effects, or actor/agent attribution despite having actor/agent/model params.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core output is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the dense parenthetical jargon ("conforming item", "Proposal payload") reduces immediate comprehension.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a single annotation, the description is far too thin. It partially substitutes for an output schema by naming the Proposal payload, but the overwhelming majority of parameters and the write semantics remain unexplained.

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 0% across 15 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains only kind, cluster, and about. Required fields body and title are never defined, and 12 other params (actor, model, severity, outcome, sources, etc.) are left entirely undocumented.

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 does name concrete outputs — a new task (kind task, cluster) or a comment (about) — returned as a Proposal payload, so an agent can infer it creates board items. However, the framing verb "Synthesize a conforming item" is opaque jargon, and it gives no signal to distinguish this from siblings like compose or propose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite nearby siblings (compose, propose, ask). The agent must guess the intended context from the name and examples alone.

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