create_project_estimate_points

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It explains the point dictionary fields and gives an example, but does not disclose important behavioral aspects like whether keys must be unique, whether points are appended or replace existing ones, or what happens on validation failure. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's side effects.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by point specification, an illustrative example, argument documentation, and return type. Each section is concise and serves a purpose, avoiding fluff while providing necessary detail.

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?

The description covers the input schema comprehensively, including the nested point structure and an example. Since an output schema is present, the description need not explain return values, but it still mentions the return type. The context is complete for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: project_id and estimate_id as UUIDs, and points as a list with valid fields (value required, max 20 chars, key int, etc.). The example further clarifies the expected structure, making the semantics clear.

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 'Create estimate points for a project estimate,' which specifies a distinct verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like create_project_estimate (which creates the estimate itself) and update_project_estimate_point (which modifies existing points).

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 provides clear context: it requires project_id, estimate_id, and a list of point definitions. It implies this is for adding points to an existing estimate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use create_project_estimate or update_project_estimate_point.

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