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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an append-style mutation and that the append_key is scoped to one post and expires after seven days. It omits important mutation behavior such as permissions, reversibility, error handling, and whether the outcome can be changed after submission.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, and the key constraint about append_key is placed immediately after.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and four parameters, the description is too sparse. It covers the append_key prerequisite and expiry but leaves thread_id, note, permissions, and return behavior unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the append_key source and expiry, and lists the enum values for outcome, but it does not explain thread_id or the optional note parameter. Two of four parameters remain semantically undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Append resolved, partial, or failed to the search post returned by search_skills.' It identifies the target post and the append operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool resolve_post, which may also relate to resolving posts.

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?

It gives clear prerequisite context: use the post returned by search_skills and that post's append_key. It also notes the key is limited to that post and expires after seven days. However, it does not state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like resolve_post.

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