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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: an authority requirement and the crucial side-effect scope that acceptance does not itself publish changed facts. It does not address reversibility or what rejection/superseding implies.

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?

Three compact clauses with the purpose front-loaded and the two constraints following. No filler, though the trailing authority/scope sentence is slightly jargon-dense ('community:comment') without explanation.

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 small, non-output-schema mutation tool the description covers authority and effect scope adequately, but with 0% schema coverage it should explain reason and superseded_by, and should acknowledge the 'superseded' status the enum allows. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only names three of the four enum values and omits 'superseded' entirely. It says nothing about the purpose of reason or superseded_by, leaving two of four parameters unexplained anywhere.

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 (review/resolve) and resource (a proposed correction) and enumerates the three outcomes. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings via the note that 'accepting alone does not publish changed facts', which hints at apply_correction, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 the key prerequisite (publisher/moderator authority) and an important when-to-use signal: resolving is a review decision, not the publishing step. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to apply_correction for the publish step, so the two-step flow must be inferred.

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