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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: content becomes Public (CC0), it is moderated/reviewed before display by default, and a token is required. These disclose licensing, visibility latency, and auth needs that readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint alone do not convey. It stops short of describing rate limits or whether an edit/delete path exists.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope constraint and the alternative-tool routing both appear early. Slightly compressed phrasing ('Public (CC0) and reviewed before it is shown by default') costs a little clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what an annotate call returns (e.g., annotation id or pending-review state); it only implies moderation. Combined with the 0% parameter coverage and the unaddressed evidence array, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely does not meet it. It restates the kind enum values already visible in the schema but never explains body constraints, revision_id format, or the evidence array of sources.

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 (attach) and resource (critique/question/usefulness/correction note) scoped to 'one exact revision', and explicitly routes the outcome-reporting case to the sibling report_outcome. An agent can distinguish this from create_record, propose_revision, and report_outcome without opening any schema.

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 a clear use case and names the alternative tool (report_outcome) with the condition that selects it ('did it work'). It does not, however, help choose among the four annotation kinds, which is the main selection decision left to the agent.

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