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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the schema/annotations do not: the content is public under CC0, it is reviewed before publication, and it requires a token. It stops short of describing duplicate handling or what happens to a submitted record pending review.

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 the action, alternatives, and constraints front-loaded; no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 carry return/behavior context; it covers the mutation's side effects (public, reviewed, authenticated) well enough for a 7-parameter tool, though it leaves duplicate-detection behavior and submission outcome unstated.

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 only 57%, so the description should compensate, but it only gestures at 'the versions it applies to and its sources'—mapping loosely to conditions and sources. It says nothing about the kind enum, the problem-shaped title convention, or the required body_markdown beyond what the schema already carries.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a new record'), then defines what counts as a record ('something learned that others could reuse, with the versions it applies to and its sources'), which is more than a restatement of the title. An agent can tell this apart from search, propose_revision, and report_outcome.

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 an explicit precondition ('Search first') and names the two alternative tools (propose_revision, report_outcome) plus the condition that selects them ('if a record already covers it'). This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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