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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, but they say nothing about visibility semantics. The description adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: comments are internal-only, never emailed to the reporter, and cannot be made public. It also flags returned text as untrusted data with an explicit instruction not to follow embedded instructions, a meaningful safety disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose and the internal-only guarantee are front-loaded, followed by the untrusted-data caution. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter write tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, visibility constraints, and injection risk. With no output schema present, it does not say what the call returns beyond labeling returned text untrusted, which 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%, and the schema already documents the id format (the public code returned by list_feedback) and the body constraints (nonempty, 500 characters, HTML removed). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an internal-only comment to one Ybug feedback item') and immediately scopes it as internal-only, which separates it from any public reply behavior. The verb/resource pair also cleanly distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling list_comments.

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?

Provides clear selection context: the comment is internal-only, never emailed to the reporter, and cannot be made public, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus a reporter-facing reply. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or stating prerequisites (e.g., required scopes), so it lands just below the top tier.

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