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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond structured fields by disclosing the customer-notification side effect of public replies and the authorization requirement. It does not explain the 'internal' default or the required 'key' secret.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core action stated first and the safety caveat second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 needn't be described, and the description covers the critical side-effect and authorization concerns for a write tool. The main gap is thin documentation of the required 'key' and 'ticketId' parameters given the 20% schema coverage.

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 low (20%, only widgetId documented), so the description would need to compensate. It hints at the public-vs-private distinction that maps to the 'internal' boolean, but gives no meaning for 'body', 'ticketId', or the required 'key', leaving much of the parameter surface unexplained.

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: 'Save a support reply or private note,' which clearly identifies the write action and dual output modes. It distinguishes the reply/note concept from read siblings like support_get_ticket, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against.

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?

Provides a concrete gating condition: 'invoke only when the user authorized that communication,' and contrasts public reply vs private note. Lacks explicit naming of alternatives (e.g., support_triage_ticket, support_save_work), but the authorization condition is a strong when-to-use rule.

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