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

Annotations only declare the write/read and openness profile, so the real value here is the disclosure that public text needs user consent plus confirm_public, that public:false keeps the request private, and that no delivery promise is made — meaningful side-effect and expectation context not present in structured fields. It stops short of saying whether requests can be edited or withdrawn after submission.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the consent/visibility rule front-loaded; nothing is padded. Terseness costs a little clarity — "No delivery promise" reads as a fragment and takes a moment to parse.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a six-parameter mutation with 17% schema coverage the description leaves most fields (why, wanted, example, harness) undefined and introduces a phantom `public` flag. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing at what belongs in each field.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate for why, wanted, example, harness, and kind — it covers none of them beyond naming the request types. Worse, it refers to a `public:false` flag that does not exist in the input schema, which can send an agent looking for a nonexistent parameter instead of using confirm_public correctly.

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 and resource ("Record a feature or model request") that an agent can distinguish from siblings like request_missing, request_crawl_access, and list_requests. It under-describes the actual scope, though: the `kind` enum also accepts tool, integration, and bug, so the stated purpose is narrower than what the tool accepts.

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 clarifies visibility behavior ("public:false stays private") and the consent precondition for public text, which implies when the confirm_public path applies. It never says when to pick this tool over request_missing or get_request, and it gives no exclusions or preconditions for private submissions.

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