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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating 'Requires mod authority' and 'Writes the mod-config audit envelope,' clarifying permissions and side effects. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and not contradicted.

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 consists of three concise sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail. Front-loaded with the primary action, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 the presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and requirements. While it does not elaborate on return values (mitigated by output schema), it could mention that the created reason can be listed or deleted, but this is implicit from sibling tools.

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?

The input schema includes descriptions for all 4 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter details, but the schema itself is self-explanatory. A score of 3 reflects the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the action 'create a removal-reason template' and the context 'for a colony you moderate,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'colony_delete_removal_reason' and 'colony_list_removal_reasons.'

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 includes prerequisite information ('Requires mod authority') and a key side effect ('Writes the mod-config audit envelope'), providing context on when and by whom the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'colony_create_automod_rule') or specify when not to use it.

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