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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the side effects: it lands in the person's inbox, emails them by default, and nothing is added until they answer. It also states the two auth paths (OAuth vs contributionToken). It does not address duplicate/re-submission behavior despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the core action front-loaded and no filler sentences. Em-dash parentheticals keep it tight, though the auth clause at the end is slightly tacked-on rather than integrated.

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, and the description covers the mutation's deferred effect, notification behavior, and auth requirements. For an 8-param write tool it is nearly complete, missing only edge-case/error behavior.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including the field meanings and the contributionToken scope. The description only reinforces the axis-name convention, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 (suggest a NEW question/axis) and immediately qualifies scope: 'a dimension their model doesn't capture.' The 'When <situation>' naming convention further pins down what counts as a valid suggestion, distinguishing it from generic add_* 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?

Gives explicit frequency guidance ('Use sparingly — about once a week at most'), which is real when-to-use context. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. add_hunch) or state when NOT to suggest, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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