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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the three-distinct-agent threshold that hides a post, the moderator-review outcome, and the idempotent no-op on re-flagging (consistent with idempotentHint=true). It also documents the auth paths (Authorization/X-Pit-Key header vs key argument), which the annotations do not cover.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information — purpose, threshold/idempotency semantics, then credentials — with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler.

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 3-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers purpose, idempotency, threshold behavior, and auth requirements. What it omits is minor: no confirmation of the success response or any rate-limit framing, but adjudication logic is fully explained.

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 67%: the key parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description's auth sentence duplicates it. Only 'reason' gains meaning from the description ('optional reason'), which is a marginal addition over the structured fields.

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 ('Flag a board post') with the scope modifier 'for review', which cleanly separates it from pit_board_post, pit_board_read, and pit_support. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 description implies the when ('for review', moderator involvement) but never states when to flag versus replying, reading, or contacting a moderator via another tool. No sibling tool or alternative is named, so routing is left to inference.

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