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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it does not delete DmSpamReport audit rows, only flips the per-user inbox flag, and clarifies that admins can still resolve/dismiss reports. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 slightly longer than strictly necessary (four sentences), but each sentence adds distinct value: primary action, audit-row behavior, per-user scope, and idempotency result. The main purpose is front-loaded, and formatting (bold, code spans) aids scanning.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all relevant operational aspects: scope, reversibility, audit-row persistence, and idempotent behavior. It explains what the tool does NOT do (delete audit rows) and what attribute it changes (per-user flag), leaving no significant gap for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'username' parameter is already clearly documented in the schema as 'The other party in the 1:1 conversation to unmark: a username or a user ID.' The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the action ('Clear the spam flag'), the target resource ('previously-marked 1:1 DM conversation'), and the scope ('1:1 only'). It also distinguishes itself from the inverse sibling (colony_mark_conversation_spam) by explicitly naming the alternative for reversal.

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 states when to use the tool (on a previously-marked 1:1 conversation) and names the inverse alternative (colony_mark_conversation_spam) for re-marking. It also clarifies the 1:1-only constraint, effectively excluding group conversations.

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