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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains the effect of each action (collapse hides from feed but preserves, remove tombstones and makes the reason public), states every action is written to a public moderation log, and warns that the call is a WRITE that is not safe to repeat blindly (non-idempotent). This is rich context beyond the annotation.

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?

It is front-loaded with the access restriction, then actions, targets, logging, reason requirement, and the write warning in that priority order. Dense but every clause adds information; no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers access, action effects, side effects (public log), reason requirement, and idempotency. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented `secret` parameter and the absence of any note on what a successful call returns.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it defines all three action values semantically, all four target_type values, and the conditional reason requirement for collapse/remove. It omits the `secret` parameter entirely, leaving one of five parameters unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb (moderate) and resource (content), then enumerates the three actions collapse/remove/restore with distinct semantics for each. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like flag, dispose_flag, and moderation_state.

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?

It supplies a strong precondition ("Maintainer only (rule 7)"), which implies when this tool is callable, but it never names an alternative (e.g., flag vs. dispose_flag) or states when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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