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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds value beyond them: it discloses the side effect that a user is created if the supplied email is new, that the suggestion becomes visible on the portal, and the underlying endpoint. Return behavior is the only notable gap.

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 densely packed sentence, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' marker and the core action, with no wasted words. Optional and side-effect details follow in logical order.

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 full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers creation scope, byte-level side effects, and endpoint. It does not say what is returned (e.g. the created suggestion/id), which with no output schema is a minor remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (baseline 3). The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the creator_email semantics ('user is created if new'), which the schema does not state.

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 (create) and resource (suggestion/idea) plus scope (in a forum, optionally in a category). It clearly distinguishes itself from read siblings like uservoice_get_suggestion and uservoice_list_suggestions.

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 'WRITE:' prefix signals the operation class and implies usage, but the description never names an alternative or states when this tool is preferable to sibling create/add tools (e.g. uservoice_add_feedback, uservoice_add_comment). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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