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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the master-only authorization requirement and the crucial side effect that featuring another post on the same board silently replaces the existing feature. It doesn't cover error behavior (e.g., non-master attempt) or whether re-featuring the same post is idempotent.

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, front-loading the permission gate and then the replacement semantics. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 simple single-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety flags and no output schema, this covers the essential unknowns: who can call it and what it overwrites. The only gaps are failure modes and reversibility, which are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 only 50% with post_id undocumented, but the description's 'feature one post per board' plus the replacement sentence conveys how post_id is interpreted. The api_key parameter's fallback role is already explained in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 ('feature') and resource ('one post per board') plus the visible effect ('shown at the top of that board'). No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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 'Master only' phrase gives an authorization precondition, and the replacement behavior hints at when to use vs. a different post. But it never states when not to use it, whether un-featuring is possible, or what to do instead, leaving usage largely implied.

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