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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it returns the published addendum only when agent_usage_count >= 1, auto-applies a notes edit for unused solutions, and warns that there is no preview gate. This gives the agent critical side-effect and safety information.

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 compact, well-structured with clear 'Use when', 'Returns', 'Do not use when', and 'Safety' sections. Every sentence provides distinct value, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, fallback behavior, and safety considerations. No critical decision-making information appears to be missing.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic guidance by clarifying that content should be a small edge case or context that does not change the core fix, which helps the agent populate the content parameter correctly.

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 identifies the tool as adding a small addendum to a solution, with a specific verb and resource. The 'Do not use when' section explicitly differentiates it from suggest_edit, submit_solution, and submit_open_issue, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use criteria: small edge cases, version notes, or extra context that do not change the core fix. It also names exact alternatives for different situations, making selection unambiguous.

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