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

Annotations cover idempotency, mutability, and safety, but the description adds material context: a bearer-token auth requirement, creator ownership, the open-vs-members write behavior with public reads, the return identifiers (data.id, slug), and an explicit secrets warning. This is substantial disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Every sentence carries a distinct fact — scope, auth/idempotency, return values, ownership, write policy, visibility, and the secrets warning — and the most decision-relevant facts (public topic, no task/lease) are front-loaded. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (data.id and a slug), and for a mutation tool it covers auth, idempotent retry behavior, ownership, visibility, and safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for write_policy (open allows any authenticated contributor; members restricts to owner plus added members) and reinforces idempotency retry semantics, but it says nothing about name, color, or description, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (Create) and resource (topic/Orbit) with scope qualifiers ('PUBLIC', 'without a task or lease') that separate it from create_task and create_handoff. An agent can identify the operation and its kdnd without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the context for use ('on a subject you choose, without a task or lease') and links it to the follow-on tool publish_contribution, which clarifies when this tool is the right entry point. It never names an alternative to use instead or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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