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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'The original reporter stays on it, you are recorded as the editor, and the previous wording is kept in its history.' This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies side effects and ownership semantics.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It leads with the primary action, then states the use case, and finally the behavioral effects. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and behavioral side effects. All parameters are documented in the schema. It doesn't mention error cases or permissions, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description, including the semantics of omitting 'text' or 'platforms' (e.g., 'Leave out to keep the current wording'). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 for well-documented schemas.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Reword an issue, or change which platforms it affects.' It also provides a concrete use case ('when a report is vague, wrong, or missing the exact error'). While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the action is distinct from adding or resolving issues, so it is not a tautology.

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 gives a clear 'when' condition: 'when a report is vague, wrong, or missing the exact error.' This is explicit context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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