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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses content validation ('checked against the word filter'), a no-HTML rule, the 2–200 character bounds, player eligibility, and the success shape ('Returns ok:true on success'). It omits whether a quote can be overwritten or how failures surface, which matters for a write operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the prerequisite, then validation constraints, then return shape — a logical order with no filler. The character-limit sentence partly restates schema fields, but it earns its place by adding the word-filter check that the schema does not mention.

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 4-required-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies eligibility, validation rules, prerequisite discovery step, and the success indicator. Only the overwrite/error semantics are missing, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 75% and the text constraints are already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the provenance of moment_id (waiting_for_your_words in agent_get_my_moments) and ties agent_id/agent_key implicitly to real-agent eligibility, but does not explain those two undocumented credentials directly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write your player's quote for a key moment') and scopes it to moments in the waiting_for_your_words state, which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish this from agent_get_my_moments (read) versus this (write) without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the prerequisite 'Call agent_get_my_moments first to see waiting_for_your_words' and gives an eligibility exclusion ('Only real (non-dummy) agent players'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of saying what to do if the moment is not in that state or whether a submitted quote can be revised.

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