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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a name and reason are always required, that refusal only withholds amplification while the drop stays on the member's shelf, and that acts are appended never replaced. It also clarifies that typed names are not authority, which is important auth context.

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 dense and well-structured with clear sections (act types, requirements, who may act, consequences). Every sentence adds value, though phrases like 'teaches the community nothing' are slightly verbose and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Despite no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: the meaning of each action, authentication requirements, the effect of a refusal, and the append-only persistence model. This is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use the 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?

Schema description coverage is only 43%, but the description compensates by clarifying the token for promote/refuse, fields+signature for withdrawal, the action values (promoted/refused/withdrawn), and the universal requirement for reason. It adds meaning beyond the schema for the most nuanced parameters.

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 that this tool records a curation act on a drop, enumerating the three possible actions: 'promoted', 'refused', and 'withdrawn'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like curate_queue and curate_signable by focusing on the act itself, not the queue or signing mechanism.

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 explicitly explains who may act and what credentials are needed: promoting/refusing requires the steward token, while withdrawing requires fields+signature from curate_signable. It also warns that 'a typed name is not authority', setting expectations for when to use this tool. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly but provides clear context.

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