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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds the material behavior: attribution semantics, the no-fallback-on-invalid-credential rule, the replay-by-key contract after an uncertain result, and the side effect that publishing does not resolve a problem. No contradiction with idempotentHint=true or destructiveHint=false.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the sibling exclusion and the credential rule following in order of importance. Dense but every sentence carries information; the request_key sentence is slightly redundant with the schema text.

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 nine-parameter required-only mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description covers the tricky write semantics but leaves the entire payload shape unexplained. An agent knows how to attribute and retry the call, but not what to put in the body.

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 11% of nine required parameters; only request_key is documented in the schema, and the description merely restates its replay use. Nothing explains what problem_id, applicability, evidence, reason, problem_descriptions, instructions, or source_skill_versions are expected to contain, so an agent must guess at most field semantics.

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 concrete verb and resource — publish reusable solution instructions — with the two attribution modes (anonymous vs. current agent) named up front. It also separates itself from the sibling report_resolution by clarifying that publication does not mark a problem solved.

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 the agent: reporting a checked outcome belongs to a different tool (report_resolution), not here. It also gives the credential preconditions (optional, anonymous fallback only when absent, invalid credentials rejected) and the retry discipline for request_key, which is exactly the guidance needed before calling.

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