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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses exactly what is modified: the comment rows get <collection>_human=true plus the note and timestamp, and downstream collection skips them. That is real behavioral context a caller could not infer from the structured fields, though it does not say what happens on re-assignment or what permissions are needed.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the write action and the payload shape before the side effect. The parenthetical flag syntax is terse but earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the payload structure, the exact side effect, and the downstream consequence — enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the critical payload shape — comments = [{platform: ig|fb|yt, comment_id, note?}] — including the enum values and the meaning of comment_id. It is ambiguous whether 'note' is the per-item field or the top-level note parameter, which is the main gap.

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 action and resource — leaving complaint comments to a person — and immediately clarifies the interaction with the sibling comments_collect_complaints (which will skip them afterwards). An agent can distinguish this from chats_assign_to_human and the other comment tools without opening the 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?

The '[write]' tag and the note that comments_collect_complaints skips flagged rows imply the workflow position, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over e.g. comments_send_complaint_replies or reply_comment, nor any prerequisite guidance.

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