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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating, non-repeatable nature is partly signaled. The description adds genuinely new context: the email notification 'cannot be recalled' and the requirement to include only user-authorized details. It stops short of spelling out auth/permission requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and irreversibility before the when/when-not guidance, and every sentence carries routing or constraint value. It is dense and slightly repetitive of the schema's parameter documentation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 non-idempotent submit action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggering conditions, exclusions, and the irreversibility of the side effect. It omits any explicit statement of required permissions or what the confirmation response looks like, minor gaps for this tool class.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, enum, and the default. The description largely restates the enums and default and adds only marginal framing ('what's wrong and ideally what you'd expect instead', 'error excerpts, the arguments you tried'), which overlaps with the schema's own examples. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Send feedback to Hjarni's maintainers') and clarifies the downstream effect (stores a record, emails an admin notification). It explicitly scopes what the feedback is about ('about Hjarni itself — confusing tool descriptions, missing capabilities...') and names the sibling it is not for ('notes-create'), so it is distinguishable from the large sibling list without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when ('use only when the user asks to send feedback') and when-not ('Do NOT use this for the user's own notes or knowledge — those belong in notes-create') plus an authorization constraint ('include only the task-specific details they authorized'). The alternative tool is named directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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