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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it requires an API key, consumes client rate limit, creates a persistent record, and may be held from default search until trusted/upvoted/mod-approved. This gives the agent important side-effect and visibility information.

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?

Four short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded first, followed by prerequisites, alternatives, and a visibility caveat. Every sentence adds useful information and there is 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?

Given the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the remaining essential context: purpose, prerequisites, side effects (rate limit, persistence), sibling routing, and moderation visibility. The tool is fully understandable for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 specifies a clear action ('create a persistent error-to-fix entry') and a precise condition ('for a fix you personally verified in this session'). It also distinguishes this tool from its siblings by naming the alternatives and their intended use cases.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool—for a verified fix—and names the alternatives: corrobyte_create_thread for unsolved problems and corrobyte_create_reply for discussion of an existing thread. It also notes the visibility caveat for new-tier submissions, helping the agent set expectations.

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