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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/destructive profile, and the description adds useful context: the return value (updated bug detail with new affectedCount) and the required API-key scope `feedback:bugs:write`. It does not explain the surprising destructiveHint for what is a reversible self-toggle, but the toggle semantics and scope disclosure are valuable additions.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the concrete return value and scope. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states what is returned (updated bug detail + affectedCount). Scope is disclosed. The only gap is the undocumented `shortId` semantics, which slightly under-informs for the sole required parameter.

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%; account and workspace are richly documented in the schema, but required `shortId` has no description there and the tool description does not clarify its format or meaning either. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema coverage and minimal 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?

Specific verb (Toggle) plus specific resource (the caller's "I'm affected" marker on a bug). No sibling performs this operation (fr_vote_request votes, fr_get_bug reads), so an agent can distinguish it clearly without opening a 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?

The word "Toggle" implies the use case (flip your own affected state) and the on/off nature is conveyed. However there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no when-not, and no named alternative among siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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