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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, but the description adds substantive behavior: durable rule creation, default immediate application, pending behavior with apply:false, the 1-credit cost, and the required follow-up ('Tell the user in one line what was learned'). This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost, usage contrast, parameter guidance, and response instruction. Every sentence contributes, though the example list could be slightly tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, default behavior, and the expected user-facing response. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor non-essential details (e.g., exact response shape, space_id clarification) omitted.

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 75% (space_id undocumented). The description adds rationale for draft_id ('so the rule is grounded in an example'), clarifies apply:false with 'pending in the web Settings', and gives concrete examples for feedback. This adds real meaning beyond the schema entries.

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 ('Teach') with a clear resource ('the engine', i.e., the brand's voice KB) and explicit examples of what counts as feedback. It also distinguishes itself from sibling revise_content_draft, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when feedback should STICK') and when-not-to-use ('use revise_content_draft when it is about one draft only'), plus additional parameter-level guidance for draft_id and apply:false. No inference is required.

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