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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the data is stored and reviewed by the founder, consent is mandatory, and sensitive content must be excluded. It does not explain idempotent resubmission behavior or what happens when consent is false, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the prerequisite and the caution. Every sentence carries information, though the caution sentence slightly overlaps with the privacy theme already raised by the consent sentence.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves too much undefined: the meaning of aggregate_consent versus consent, the valid rating and issue values, comment constraints, and what the agent should expect on success or rejected consent. It covers the safety posture but not the mechanics an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It alludes to rating and consent but leaves issue, comment, session_id, and especially aggregate_consent (whose distinction from consent is non-obvious) completely unexplained.

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: submit a usefulness rating for an owned session, which is clearly distinct from siblings like eclypse_complete_session or eclypse_account. The only gap is scope narrowing – the description mentions only the rating, while the schema also accepts issue, comment, and aggregate_consent, so the stated purpose is slightly narrower than the tool's actual capability.

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?

"Optionally submit" establishes the tool is discretionary, and "Requires consent to storage and founder review" states a real prerequisite before invoking. It also gives an explicit do-not (private transcripts or secrets). No alternative tools are named, but the usage context is clear.

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