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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool requires mod authority, writes an audit envelope, and rejects duplicate labels (e.g., duplicate labels rejected). It also notes a limit of 25 per colony, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is three sentences, each with essential information: action and constraints, authorization, and behavioral side effect. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists, annotations provided), the description covers purpose, authorization, constraints, and behavioral effects. The output schema handles return values, so completeness is high.

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% (all 5 parameters described in schema). The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, but the schema already covers semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Create a post-flair template for a colony you moderate'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_create_user_flair and colony_delete_post_flair by specifying 'post-flair' and mentioning constraints (max 25 per colony, duplicate labels rejected).

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 context: 'Requires mod authority' indicates when the tool is appropriate. It also mentions the audit envelope, implying it's for moderator configuration. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the constraints (max 25, duplicate rejection) guide usage.

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