cmd_enhancement

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the multi-entity side effect: one call creates a ticket, a chain, and a planning declaration, and the chain starts in Planning. That composite-effect disclosure is genuinely useful and not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of saying whether failures leave partial state behind.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the composite output, then the phase template. Four short lines, no filler; the trailing 'Starts in Planning' is slightly redundant with the phase list but harmless.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile, but for a destructive, non-idempotent tool that creates three linked entities the description leaves the parameter meanings and the entity/vision relationship entirely unexplained. Adequate skeleton, real gaps.

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 three parameters (title, vision, entity), so the description carries the full burden and does not explain any of them. 'Planning declaration' and 'entity' are never connected, and the distinction between title and vision is left entirely to the caller's guess.

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 verb and resource ('Create enhancement') and decomposes it into what actually gets produced: ticket + chain + planning declaration, plus the pre-typed phase sequence. This is materially clearer than a bare 'create' command and implicitly separates it from cmd_new_ticket/cmd_refactor, though it never names those siblings outright.

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 or when-not guidance: nothing tells the agent why it would pick cmd_enhancement over cmd_new_ticket, cmd_refactor, or cmd_bug_fix, or what preconditions the caller must satisfy. The only usage-relevant content is the resulting chain shape, which is inferred rather than stated.

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