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

Annotations mark this as a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: exactly what text leaves the system (title, details, context only), a privacy constraint on conversation content, and the fact that the person is notified when status changes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and targets, and nearly every clause carries information (routing, scope of data sent, bug specifics, follow-up). It is a dense single paragraph, but nothing is truly redundant.

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 write tool with a nested context object fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the remaining gaps: what is transmitted, confidentiality expectations, and how status is tracked. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value on top: it establishes the default value of 'to' and the data-minimization rule for title/details/context, plus specific guidance on what to put in context for a bug (error, request_id, expected).

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+resource ('send a bug report, feedback or a feature request') with two routing targets ('wayza' vs 'app'). It also names the sibling that handles the follow-up ('check it with list_feedback'), so an agent can place it precisely among the feedback-related tools.

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?

Explains when to route to 'wayza' versus 'app', when to attach technical details (for bugs), and how to check status afterwards via list_feedback. It does not exclude cases (e.g., when commons_post or commons_report would be the better channel), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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