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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, and the description goes beyond that by explaining that 'less_like_this' hides an included entry and that feedback is kept separate from the Collection filter. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is concise, uses three short sentences, and includes a concrete example. It is well-structured and does not waste words, though the example could have been used more effectively to document all parameter values.

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?

With an output schema present, explaining return values is less necessary, but the tool lacks parameter descriptions and explicit side-effect disclosure beyond hiding an entry. The description gives some context but is not fully complete for a mutation tool with destructive hint.

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% and the description only gives a single example with value 'less_like_this'. It does not explain the meaning of entryId, the effect of 'more_like_this', or the semantics of null for undoing feedback, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 title and description clearly indicate this tool sets or undoes explicit feedback on an entry, with 'less_like_this' hiding an included entry. It distinguishes the tool from feed filter management, though the exact behavior for 'more_like_this' and null is not fully spelled out.

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 description provides some usage context by stating feedback remains separate agent context and never silently revises the Collection filter, which helps distinguish it from filter-related sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_feed_filter or query_feeds.

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