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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses two meaningful behaviors: it requires mod authority, and it 'writes the mod-config audit envelope' — a side effect leaving a persistent audit trail that an agent would not infer from the schema or annotations. This adds real behavioral value; it only stops short of 5 by not explaining consequences like duplicate labels or audit immutability.

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 terse sentences with the primary action front-loaded; 'Requires mod authority' and 'Writes the mod-config audit envelope' each earn their place by conveying preconditions and side effects. The phrase 'mod-config audit envelope' is slightly jargon-heavy but remains compact and efficient.

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 tool with 5 params (100% schema coverage) and an output schema present, the description adequately covers what the agent needs beyond structured fields: the creator's authority requirement and the audit-envelope side effect. Minor gap: the schema marks only label/body as required while the colony param self-describes as 'Required.', and the description does not help resolve that inconsistency, though 'for a colony you moderate' weakly implies colony is needed.

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 already documents all five parameters (label, body, colony, position, colony_name); baseline 3 applies. The description's 'template' framing subtly ties to label/body and 'a colony you moderate' reinforces the colony param, but it adds no parameter-level specifics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('removal-reason template'), and adds scope ('for a colony you moderate'). This is clearly distinct from siblings like colony_create_post_flair or colony_create_user_flair at the resource level. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby tools such as colony_delete_removal_reason or colony_list_removal_reasons, relying on the verb rather than naming the alternative.

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 useful context — it is a moderator-scoped action and requires mod authority — which implies who should use it and the precondition to check. But it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and does not route to any alternative (e.g., updating vs deleting a removal reason), even though already-existing sibling tools cover those adjacent operations.

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