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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the internal-visibility semantics tied to the `View Internal Data` permission and the required `feedback:comments:write` API-key scope. It stops short of describing what happens on failure or duplicate submission.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the key flag behavior, then the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 5-parameter mutation with well-documented schema properties and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing permission and scope context. It doesn't indicate what a successful call returns (no output schema exists), which is a minor remaining gap.

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 80%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description meaningfully expands the sparse `isInternal` schema entry ("Default: false") by explaining what true actually does and what permission the visibility depends on. `content` and `shortId` remain self-evident from the schema.

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 (Add) and resource (a comment to a feature request), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling fr_comment_bug. An agent can distinguish the target resource 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?

Usage is implied by "Add a comment to a feature request", but the description never names fr_comment_bug as the alternative for bug comments, nor states prerequisites or when-not to use it. Guidance for isInternal is provided, but that is parameter-level, not tool selection.

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