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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: partial update preserves omitted fields, auto mode only applies to reviews written afterwards, AI-flagged reviews requiring a human are held rather than auto-answered, plus plan and write-scope prerequisites. This is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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, front-loaded with 'WRITE tool —' so the operation class is immediately visible, and no filler. Every clause carries a distinct obligation or side effect.

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 no output schema, the description still covers mutation semantics, side effects, and prerequisites adequately for a 10-param config setter. It never mentions what the call returns or how to verify the new state, which is a minor residual gap rather than a blocker.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters (mode, ranges, caps, delays, localization) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds mutation semantics but no per-parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 set (switch on/off, update) and the exact resource (the review responder for one of your own iOS apps), scoping it to 'own iOS app' so it is distinguishable from the config-reading sibling sonar_review_responder and from reply-level tools. An agent knows precisely what changes.

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?

Gives clear context: partial-update semantics ('omitted fields keep their value'), the Indie plan requirement and the auth/write-scope need. It does not explicitly name the sibling to read current settings (sonar_review_responder) or when to prefer it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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