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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces by noting no creation occurs. It goes beyond annotations by detailing the return values (acceptance, blocker, rendered HTML, mentions, warnings) and the specific caveat about rate-limits not being rechecked.

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 efficient sentences. The first sets purpose, the second lists outputs and a key limitation. No fluff or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and sibling tools (especially colony_comment_on_post), the description covers purpose, return values, key limitation, and differentiation. It fully addresses what an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond confirming they are validated like the real create. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Dry-run a comment WITHOUT creating it.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and immediately distinguishes itself from 'colony_comment_on_post' by noting it runs the same validation without persistence.

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 explicitly mentions that rate-limits are not re-checked and directs the user to 'colony_get_limits' for that. It implies use before creating a comment, but does not explicitly state when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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