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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real side effect beyond the schema: all of the author's subscribers are automatically notified. It says nothing about permission/auth requirements beyond the auth_token parameter, reversibility, or failure modes for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences with the creation action front-loaded and the notification side effect appended. No filler or redundancy.

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?

A write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage needs more than two sentences. Missing are auth/permission expectations, what category means, how community_slug and channel_slug interact or whether they must be paired, and any return/confirmation detail.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies that content is Markdown and that community_slug/channel_slug are optional placement targets, but category and auth_token receive no semantic explanation at all.

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 ('Publie un nouvel actfile'), qualifies the content type (Markdown), and the word 'nouvel' distinguishes it from sibling mcp_update_actfile and mcp_comment_actfile without opening any 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?

The description implies context by noting the actfile can optionally be placed in a community/channel, but it never states when to choose this tool over mcp_update_actfile or mcp_comment_actfile, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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