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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects the hints cannot convey: the report is stored in Revup, a Slack notification goes to the Revup team outside the connected account, the response includes a feedback_id, and promotions are not modified. It also states the secret-handling policy (no passwords, tokens, or personal data), which is exactly the kind of guardrail that prevents harmful invocations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then triggers, then required payload, then privacy warning, then side effects. Six sentences, all carrying distinct information, with no restatement of the title or name.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what gets persisted, the external notification, the returned feedback_id, and the non-mutating scope. The only omission is promotion_id, which is a minor parameter-level gap rather than a barrier to correct 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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description usefully compensates for three of the five parameters: it defines what a good 'note' contains, tells the agent where to source 'request_id' (from the error response), and says to include 'tool_name' when available. 'promotion_id' is never mentioned in either place, leaving a genuine gap, so it falls short of a 5.

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 ('Report a Revup bug, confusing behavior, or a missing capability to the Revup team') and enumerates what counts as reportable. This is unmistakably distinct from the promotion CRUD/read siblings, so an agent can select it 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when a tool errors unexpectedly, returns something that looks wrong, or cannot do what the user asked') plus an explicit gate ('call it only when the user wants to report it'), which correctly prevents the agent from filing unsolicited reports. No sibling alternative is named, but none is applicable since nothing else in the toolset reports feedback.

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