PDCA auto-improve a failing QA story

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

Annotations indicate a write operation with side effects. The description adds context: it finds failed runs, uses Claude to write scripts, creates tests with source=pdca, and gates approval by automation_mode. This adds value beyond 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?

Three concise sentences that efficiently convey action, process, and behavioral detail without redundancy.

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 trigger tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers key mechanics. Missing details like return values are minor given the tool's 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% for 1 parameter. Description merely restates the schema's note about optional projectId. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool triggers the PDCA improver for a project, distinguishes it from siblings like approve_qa_story and run_qa_story by specifying it finds failed runs and generates improved scripts.

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 implies the tool is for auto-improving failing QA stories but does not explicitly contrast with manual alternatives or specify preconditions beyond 'failing qa_story_runs'.

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