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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but do not cover auth requirements. The description discloses the admin-only permission gate and the permission error for others, adding useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It also mentions the prerequisite of fetching the id, though it doesn't detail post-success behavior, which is acceptable.

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 concise sentences. It front-loads the critical ADMIN ONLY warning, then states the action, and closes with a prerequisite. No filler or 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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (1 required), the description covers the auth requirement, the source of the required id, and the action. It does not explain return values or side effects, but without an output schema and with simple parameters, this is sufficient. A bit more detail on success behavior would push it to 5.

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% (admin_notes and feedback_id have descriptions, status only has an enum). The description adds minimal value: it says 'set its status and/or admin notes' which clarifies the optionality but does not explain the enum semantics or provide further details beyond the schema. Since coverage is moderate, the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it adds little.

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 — set its status and/or admin notes') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_meta_council_feedback as the source of the id and by flagging ADMIN ONLY, which separates it from submit_meta_council_feedback.

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?

It provides clear context: requires an admin account and instructs to get the id from list_meta_council_feedback. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool (e.g., vs. submit_meta_council_feedback), but the purpose and prerequisites imply the correct usage. A direct exclusion would push it to 5.

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