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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious side effect: recent project errors are attached automatically, and replies surface in support.list. It does not cover auth requirements, mutation impact, or failure behavior, leaving some gaps for a write-style tool.

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, action front-loaded, and each clause adds information (what to send, how to phrase it, automatic attachment, where replies go). No 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: what to include, the auto-attached errors, and where replies appear. It stops short of explaining permissions or what a successful return looks like, but that is a minor gap given the simple submission model.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including the 'steps, expected vs actual, commands, error text' guidance for body. The description adds only marginal param meaning ('Include what you tried and what happened'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Send) and resource (bug report/feature request/question to the Plinth team), making the action unambiguous. It also name-drops the sibling support.list as the place replies appear, which helps an agent distinguish this submission tool from the listing tool.

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 enumerates when to use it (bug report, feature request, or question) and gives practical usage advice ('Include what you tried and what happened'). It does not state when-not to use it or point to a competing tool beyond the implied support.list relationship.

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