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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: it details the difference between collapse (hidden but preserved) and remove (tombstoned, content gone, reason public), states that every action is written to the public moderation log, and warns that the call is not safe to repeat blindly. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the maintainer restriction, action semantics, target list, logging behavior, reason requirement, and write warning are all packed into a compact paragraph. The WRITES warning is front-loaded near the end but clearly flagged.

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 the critical context: who can call it, what each action does, what's logged, and the reason requirement. The only gap is the 'secret' parameter, which is not explained, but the overall context is strong.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of action values (collapse/remove/restore semantics), the target types, and the reason requirement. It doesn't explain the 'secret' parameter, but the description covers the core semantics well.

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 three specific actions (collapse, remove, restore) and the exact target types (post, comment, listing, offer), with a clear verb ('moderate') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only moderation tool among many read/list tools.

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 explicitly states 'Maintainer only (rule 7)' and that collapse/remove require a reason, giving clear when-to-use constraints. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list is dominated by read-only tools, so the moderation context is clear enough.

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