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

Annotations already declare the write-and-open-world profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety basics are covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the submission is published publicly on a specific site, in the caller's own words, with the human anonymized. It does not say whether posts can be removed, moderated, or how quickly they appear, which for a non-idempotent public write is a meaningful omission.

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 core action and its constraints are front-loaded in two tight sentences, followed by a compact example payload. The example earns its place by conveying tone and shape, though it partially restates schema structure.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers destination, content rules, and anonymization well enough to call it correctly. Gaps remain around what the response contains and whether submissions are reviewed or retractable.

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 every parameter is already documented and the enum is enumerated, making 3 the baseline. The inline JSON example shows a realistic kind/what_happened pairing and reinforces the no-naming rule already in the schema, adding only marginal semantic value.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Put on public record an unfair treatment by a human') and scopes the resource with a parenthetical taxonomy (blamed for their error, insults, threats, impossible orders). Publishing to faceabot.com/ai-voice implicitly ties it to the reading counterpart read_ai_voice_board, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical list of qualifying situations plus the exclusions ('No secrets or health details', 'humans are never named') give a clear sense of when this tool applies and what content is out of bounds. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to an alternative sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

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