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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the visibility model (only editors read it, never published) and a privacy constraint about omitting keys and personal data. It does not explain duplicate-submission behavior, consistent with idempotentHint=false, but the visibility and privacy disclosure is the important part.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its audience, then the privacy caveat. The triple example ('a command that failed, a version that did not install, a step that did not work') is mildly redundant but earns its place by scoping what counts as an issue.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema submission tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, audience, and privacy constraints. What the caller sees after submitting is unstated, but with no output schema and a fire-and-forget editorial report that is a small gap.

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 all three parameters (text, recipe, version) are already documented in the schema, including the recipe-id format and draft- prefix. The description's mention of the brief's line and command output largely restates the schema's own text guidance, so it adds little beyond baseline.

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 (report/tell) and resource (problems in a kit's AGENTS.md), plus the exact failure modes in scope (failed command, version that did not install, broken step). Nothing in the sibling list overlaps with this action, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context: use it after building from a kit when something was wrong, missing, or out of date. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling performs a comparable action, so the omission is minor.

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