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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: an optimistic-concurrency precondition (expected_revision) and the restriction that accepted findings cannot be edited here. It does not disclose what 'dismiss' does to the finding's visibility, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary action set leads and the precondition/alternative follow, so the most load-bearing information 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 9-parameter mutation tool with two action-specific fields and 67% schema coverage, the description never clarifies which fields apply to which action or what project_id defaults to, leaving the agent to infer the per-action contract.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining the concurrency role of expected_revision, which the schema leaves completely undocumented. It also implies reason only applies to dismissal, though it never states per-action field requirements (e.g., that text/title are edit-only).

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 three specific verbs (edit, dismiss, restore) on a precisely scoped resource ('one private finding'), and retains scope ('private') to separate it from accept_review_findings and update_comment. An agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Requires its current revision') and a routing rule for the excluded case ('an accepted finding must be edited through the ordinary comment API'). No explicit guidance on choosing between edit/dismiss/restore, but the enum plus dismiss-reason parameter make the mapping largely inferable.

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