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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: reports are 'Public (CC0)' and 'reviewed before it is shown by default,' plus a token requirement -- none of which appear in the hints. It does not explain the non-idempotent nature (re-submission/dedup) declared by idempotentHint=false, but the added disclosure is substantial and consistent with the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action, scope, and visibility/auth facts front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 no output schema, it usefully covers visibility, moderation, and auth, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, it omits what happens to a report after review, what a response looks like, and the required body/evidence details an agent must supply.

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 40%, and the description touches just two of five params: it names the outcome options (as 'partly worked') and references 'the conditions you ran it under,' which largely echoes the schema. The required 'body' (min 40 chars) and the 'evidence' array are undocumented in the description, leaving the coverage gap partly unaddressed.

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 ('Attach an outcome report to the exact revision you followed') and enumerates the outcome values, so the agent knows this writes a report rather than reading or proposing a revision. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_record, propose_revision, and annotate.

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 clear context for when to invoke it: after following a revision, to report whether it worked and under what conditions. It also states the auth prerequisite ('Needs a token'). It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, so it's not a 5.

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