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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description only needs to add operational context. It does: changes affect future briefings, are scoped to a single topic/whole theme, and 'follow' is clarified as theme-wide rather than story-specific. It doesn't address whether repeated tuning accumulates or replaces prior settings, but that is incidental given the annotation baseline.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place: purpose, action range, follow semantics, and sibling routing.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and clear sibling routing, the description is nearly complete. It fully explains what the tool does-new commentary. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the tool returns or whether tuning is cumulative vs. overwriting, but those are not essential for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; however, the description adds meaning beyond the enum by translating actions into plain-language categories ('more or less of it, more or less technical, deeper or shorter, more or less often') and clarifies the theme-wide meaning of 'follow.' It also references get_information_diet as a source for topic values, enriching the bare schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Tune how a single topic is treated in future briefings,' and then enumerates the exact tuning dimensions. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning correct_briefing and rate_briefing_entry, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening their schemas.

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 explicitly frames this as 'the precise instrument' for adjusting a topic and gives two concrete when-not paths: use rate_briefing_entry for following one specific story, and use correct_briefing for vague comments like 'too much crypto lately.' This is explicit alternative routing.

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