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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: no cost, an authorization scope requirement, and the downstream effect that feedback improves future drafts. It stops short of saying whether the skip is reversible (undo_move exists) or what happens to the move record afterward.

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?

A single dense sentence ordered by importance: action, cost, permission, then parameter purpose. No filler, nothing repeated from annotations.

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 one-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, auth scope, and the feedback loop, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The notable gap is reversibility/irreversibility of the skip, which matters for a destructiveHint tool.

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 earns more by explaining that feedback_key is a closed vocabulary and that both feedback fields exist to improve future marketing drafts — meaning beyond the per-field schema text.

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 plus resource ('Dismiss a growth move') and anchors it to the user-facing action ('Skip in the Feed'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like accept_move, undo_move, and ship_move. An agent can pick it 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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('requires the act scope') and notes it is free, which helps gate invocation. However it never says when to use this versus accept_move/undo_move, nor that skipping is the negative counterpart to accepting — usage context is implied rather than stated.

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