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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/not-read-only, and the description adds material context beyond that: content is a full body replacement (with advice to start from current content to preserve mentions/formatting), tags are collaborative by NAME and must already exist, replies cannot carry tags, and the return shape matches feedback_get without replies. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure including the return contract, which no output schema provides.

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 action, then dense conditional detail. It is longer than one sentence but nearly every clause carries a distinct constraint; the parenthetical about starting from current content is actionable rather than 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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers permissions boundaries, partial-update semantics, the replies exception, and even the return value shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further inference.

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 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: the 'at least one of content, timestamp, add_tags, remove_tags' requirement, the whole-body replacement behavior of content, and the tag-by-NAME / must-exist constraint.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Edit an existing feedback item") and immediately scopes what is editable. It is clearly distinguishable from feedback_post (create) and feedback_get (read) without opening any schema, and it enumerates the mutable fields.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: content/timestamp only on the connected user's OWN comments, tags on ANY item you can comment on but never on replies (tag the root instead), and requires at least one of content/timestamp/add_tags/remove_tags. It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative, which is why this 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.