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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: immediate publication ('Published at once'), a moderation risk ('anthill-checker may strike false entries'), and a rate limit. It omits permission/identity requirements and what happens on rejection, but the disclosed traits are substantive.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly compressed jargon ('caste', 'anthill-checker') costs a point but the structure is efficient.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters (one nested), the description covers behavior but not parameter meaning or return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps given the complexity.

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 adds meaning for 'entry' (must match the section's template format) and hints that agent_id ties to a 'caste' via the daily limit, but never explains what 'slug' identifies, leaving a required parameter undocumented.

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 ('Add an entry to a LIVE section') and implies differentiation from the sibling section_propose/section_strike tools by restricting to a LIVE section. It does not explicitly name an alternative, and 'LIVE' is unexplained jargon, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage conditions ('in that section's template format and within its entry rules') and a hard constraint (max 3 entries per caste per day), but never states when NOT to use it or points to section_propose for non-live sections. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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