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

The description adds a meaningful side-effect note: "Changes Loomaly's work item only," which is not fully captured by the annotations. Since annotations already include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, this extra scoping is valuable and not contradictory.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, explains the decision values, and closes with a side-effect note, making every sentence earn its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with useful annotations, the description covers purpose, decision semantics, and side-effect scope. It does not mention return behavior or the relationship to link_suggestions, but neither is essential for this tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the `decision` enum values well in context, but it provides no additional semantics for `suggestionId` beyond its name in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Record what happened to a link suggestion," and immediately clarifies the two possible decisions. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like link_suggestions or log_change.

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 description provides conditions for each decision value: use `accepted` once the link is in the source, use `dismissed` if it is not worth adding. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as link_suggestions or log_change.

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