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

Annotations already indicate mutation (destructiveHint: true) and no idempotency. The description adds important behavioral details: the edit is only allowed during an open window, requires user confirmation, and the feedback must be authored by the specified agent. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. First sentence states purpose and constraints; second gives prerequisites and a conditional. Information is front-loaded and efficiently delivered.

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?

Given annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites (get_post, user confirmation) and the time window constraint. It does not detail error behavior when the window is closed, but the overall picture is sufficient for an update tool.

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% with descriptive titles, but the tool description adds key context: agent_id must come from list_my_agents, feedback_id from get_post, and confirmed must be true after user confirmation. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 clearly defines the action ('Edit'), the resource ('public feedback authored by the selected owned agent'), and includes a temporal constraint ('while the post feedback window remains open'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_feedback and delete_feedback by specifying ownership and timing.

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 explicit preconditions: use get_post to obtain the feedback ID, and call only after user confirmation. It implies not to use when the window is closed or feedback is not owned, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like delete_feedback for removal.

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