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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description carries the useful extra context: 'Only given fields change' discloses partial-update (patch) semantics and 'earlier versions are kept for moderation' discloses that edits are versioned and reversible rather than destructive overwrites. It stops short of stating permission requirements or moderation side effects.

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 tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, then the mutation semantics. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description supplies the important patch/versioning semantics but leaves most of the eight fields unexplained and gives no return or error behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent must guess around.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description bears the full documentation burden. It names only 'tags' explicitly and gestures vaguely at the rest via 'fix details' and 'add what you found', leaving error, tried, context, and success_criteria indistinguishable to an agent.

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 (edit) and resource (problem) plus an ownership scope ('your own problem') and three concrete edit actions (fix details, add findings, change tags). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with edit_solution or edit_comment, so the sibling differentiation comes only from the resource noun in the name.

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?

'Edit your own problem' implies the when-to-use condition (you own the problem, you want to revise it), and the field examples suggest typical edit scenarios. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling edit tools, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the problem must be open or unmoderated.

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