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

Adds a behavioral constraint beyond annotations: the permission error for non-admin users. Annotations already indicated the tool is not read-only, so the description's addition of the auth requirement is valuable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with 'ADMIN ONLY' and the core action. Every phrase earns its place: permission requirement, action scope, ID source. No redundant information.

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 tool with three parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, admin restriction, and required ID source. The schema already documents parameter details and the empty-string clearing behavior for admin_notes, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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 67%, with admin_notes and feedback_id described in the schema; status has an enum but no description. The description reinforces that status and/or admin_notes can be set, but does not add new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'triage a platform-feedback report' with specific scope 'set its status and/or admin notes'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_meta_council_feedback and submit_meta_council_feedback by focusing on triage/update rather than listing or creating.

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 notes 'ADMIN ONLY' and the need for an ADMIN_EMAILS account, preventing misuse. Also directs users to 'Get the full feedback id from list_meta_council_feedback', providing the necessary prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the admin-only context implies when it should be used.

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