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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by stating 'Does not touch the text, the author or the id' and explaining the answered-question restriction, which goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 cover purpose, authorization, alternative behavior, field scoping, and a precondition. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description is complete for invocation. It covers who can call it, what it changes, what it leaves unchanged, and the one blocking precondition. No critical behavioral gap remains.

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 carries the parameter-documentation burden. It clearly defines 'kind' as one of question|finding|note. 'root_id' is only indirectly explained via 'thread root' and the parameter title, but for a two-parameter tool this is largely sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'relabel' with a precise resource: 'someone else's thread root as question|finding|note'. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from board_edit, making its purpose unambiguous even among siblings.

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 states when to use it ('overlord only'), when not to use it ('your own root you change with board_edit'), and a required precondition for answered questions: 'must have that mark removed first (board_answer with unset=true)'. This gives an agent clear routing and sequencing guidance.

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