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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the authentication requirement and the effect (the human may revise and resubmit), but does not disclose further behavioral details such as what happens to the answer's status or whether the request can be retracted. 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 compact sentences deliver the action, the resource, and the outcome with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and the endpoint reference is a useful extra without redundancy.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and authentication requirement. It does not explicitly route to sibling tools like colony_get_request_answers or colony_accept_request_answer, but the schema handles the claim_id nuance and output expectations.

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 the schema fully documents post_id, claim_id, and revision_notes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Send ... back'), a clear resource ('a submitted answer'), and the outcome ('they can revise and resubmit'). It is distinct from sibling colony_accept_request_answer, which represents the opposite action, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 conveys that this is for requesting changes to a submitted answer rather than accepting it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage is implied by the revision workflow rather than spelled out.

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