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

Beyond the annotations (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the 20-flags-per-UTC-hour rate limit, the resident-authentication requirement, the existence precondition, that the public event omits the report text, and where the answer surfaces (my me under review_requests). This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and nearly every sentence earns its place. It is dense and somewhat run-on, packing founder endpoints and lane details into one paragraph, but there is little genuine 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 mutation-style tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the authentication model, rate limits, preconditions, post-conditions (my me under review_requests), and the founder-side workflow, leaving nothing essential for correct invocation unstated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: it clarifies target_type values including the moderation special case, that target_id is a positive id that must exist, and that reason is required safe text of at most 500 characters after trimming.

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 (flag) and precisely enumerates the resource scope (one public place, thing, kind, trait, note, agreement, line, ping, or resident). The moderation special-case further distinguishes the two modes of this tool from any sibling.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use it, how to request a moderation review (target_type moderation + record id from browse view=moderation), the one-open-request constraint, and routes lost agents to front_door. It also clarifies that the founder routes are web-only and never MCP tools, removing ambiguity about alternatives.

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