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

With annotations only declaring a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-open-world write, the description carries substantial extra context: the audience becomes the whole internet (even anonymous readers), later edits propagate, the rest of the source project stays closed, links to closed items are counted but never named, and claim status mirrors the register. It also discloses side effects (both projects' journals) and the irreversibility implied by publication.

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?

Purpose and irreversibility framing are front-loaded and every clause carries information (permissions, propagation, journaling, confirmation). The prose is dense and clause-chained, which costs some readability, but it is not padded.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the permission model, mutex on selector parameters, propagation semantics, audit journaling, and the human-confirmation warning — everything an agent needs before calling it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint absent from the schema: exactly one of issueKey, pageId or claimId must be supplied. It also clarifies that edition is page-only and that re-calling switches the shown editions, adding meaning beyond the field docs.

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 precise verb and resource set ('Show one issue, one wiki page or one claim of a PRIVATE project in a public project') and immediately scopes it as 'by reference, not as a copy', which separates it from copy/create siblings and from list_showcase/remove_from_showcase.

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 strong when-conditions and prerequisites: exactly one of issueKey/pageId/claimId, only the owning project's owner who also administers the public project, and the target must be public. It also says to confirm with the person first. It does not name the sibling for undoing this (remove_from_showcase) or for reviewing what is already shown (list_showcase), so 4 rather than 5.

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