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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a real side effect the schema cannot: "The reporter and the team are notified," plus the identity under which the comment is posted. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true flag or whether comments can be edited/removed, so a mutation with no reversal information remains partially opaque.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the attribution, then the usage intent, then the side effect. The style advice ("in plain words the reporter understands") borders on editorializing but still serves the tool's purpose.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, caller identity, and the downstream notification effect. Missing details are minor — no error behavior and no explanation of the destructive flag — but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 each property is documented (time formats, markdown/5000-char limit, recording link or id). The description only echoes that "at" is optional, adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 — commenting on a recording — and adds who the comment is attributed to ("the person who connected you"). It is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings (get_annotations, get_transcript), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Use it to report back: what you found, the cause, and the fix or pull request" gives concrete guidance on when and with what content to call it. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to a sibling tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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