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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), it discloses the actual semantics: it updates or replaces the existing saved rating, the latest rating wins, and a reject temporarily suppresses the idea and its topic. It also scopes the blast radius by stating it only touches private Tukey state and never publishes, deletes, or modifies YouTube or Instagram content — valuable context given the destructive flag. It stops short of covering error behavior or how long the temporary suppression lasts.

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?

It is front-loaded with the trigger and the rating options, then moves to side effects and exclusions. It is slightly long and restates the enum meanings already present in the schema, but every sentence still carries routing or behavioral information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers trigger, allowed values, state effects, scope limits, and the relevant sibling alternative. The only gap is what happens with an invalid or unknown opportunity_id, which is minor here.

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 100% and both parameters already document the enum meanings and the uuid format in detail, so the schema carries the weight. The description adds only the provenance hint that the id comes from list_video_opportunities, which is a marginal addition; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description names a specific verb (rate/save/pass/dismiss) and resource (a Tukey video idea) and enumerates the three rating outcomes, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like start_video_opportunity or list_video_opportunities 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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('when the user reacts to one of their Tukey video ideas') plus negative guidance: do not use it to start work on an idea (use start_video_opportunity), and do not rate an idea the user has not reacted to. Both alternatives and exclusions are stated.

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