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

Annotations declare the mutation is non-read-only, non-destructive and idempotent, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: no comments are posted, no hosted AI credits are spent, truth is not established, and page content is untrusted. This is real added value beyond the annotation flags, though it does not spell out auth/permission requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the negative constraints and the sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus the description cover safety, cost, and trust posture. The main shortfall is the unaddressed parameter semantics for a complex nested payload.

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 only 33% and most top-level parameters (target, captures, evidence, findings, checklist, limitations) have no top-level description. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, formats, or how captures/evidence/findings relate to each other, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 9-parameter, deeply nested tool.

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+resource ('Stage ... captured observations as private review suggestions') and immediately differentiates the operation from its sibling accept_review_findings by contrasting staging against publication. An agent can distinguish this from the other review tools without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes publication to accept_review_findings with a precondition ('only when the user authorized publication'), which implies this tool is the pre-authorization path. However, it does not cover when to prefer it over siblings like review_page or quote_review_page, leaving some routing to inference.

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