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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it names the exact blast radius (PUBLIC status page plus email, SMS, Slack, Teams, X integrations) and states there is no suppression switch. That is precisely the side-effect information an agent needs before publishing.

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?

The 'WRITE:' lead and the endpoint identifier are front-loaded and useful, but the middle repeats itself: 'The docs list no switch to suppress that on this endpoint, so confirm_publish=true is required; this endpoint has no exposed suppression switch' says the same thing twice in one sentence.

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?

All four parameters are required and fully documented, annotations cover the safety profile, and there is no output schema to explain. The one thing an agent must know before calling, that the write is public and irreversible in reach, is spelled out.

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% and every parameter, including the confirm_publish rationale, is already documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm_publish constraint but adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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: 'add one update (a comment) to a notice's timeline'. The word 'add' plus the timeline framing clearly separates it from the sibling sorryapp_edit_notice_update, and the 'WRITE:' prefix signals the mutation class immediately.

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?

Explains the precondition for use (confirm_publish=true is mandatory because the update is public and fan-outs to integrations) and effectively states a when-not condition: if suppression is needed, this endpoint cannot do it. It does not explicitly name edit_notice_update or list_notice_updates as alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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