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

Adds value beyond annotations by specifying that updates are public, that supporters are emailed ONLY when notify_supporters is true, and giving the admin endpoint. The annotation destructiveHint=true is not explained (what gets destroyed), leaving a small 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?

Front-loaded with the WRITE marker, then purpose, key conditional, and endpoint in a tight single line with zero waste.

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?

Complete enough for a mutation tool: purpose, safety-relevant conditional (supporters notified), and endpoint are covered. Without an output schema the description could say more about the response, but the essentials are present.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds only the conditional behavior of notify_supporters and references uservoice_list_statuses for status_id, minor value over the schema baseline.

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+resource: posting a public status update on a suggestion, with the optional status change. Clearly distinct from siblings like uservoice_add_comment or uservoice_add_note by naming the status-update resource and the POST endpoint.

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?

Names uservoice_list_statuses as the lookup for valid status IDs and explains the notify_supporters condition, giving clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing to a sibling tool is present.

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