Set ticket requirements

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

The description discloses overwriting behavior (matches destructiveHint) and explains that once set, the work packet and definition-of-done are affected. This adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint). No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences front-load purpose, then behavior, consequence, and workflow hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 write tool with 6 parameters and good annotations, the description is sufficient: it explains purpose, overwrite behavior, downstream effect, and provides a workflow step. No output schema needed for a write operation.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters described). The description adds meaning by listing 'intent, assumptions, acceptance criteria, and open questions' which map to parameters, but it doesn't explicitly describe the 'project' and 'ticket' parameters, though they are implied. It adds some value but not full compensation.

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 writes a ticket's refined requirements pad with specific fields (intent, assumptions, acceptance criteria, open questions) and overwrites existing pads. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which have different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use: after drafting content (reference to 'refine prompt') and to persist it. It explains the consequence (work packet carries requirements, acceptance criteria become DoD). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but sibling tools do not overlap.

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