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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the required authorization tier and that the request must be signed. However, it says nothing about mutation consequences (durability, reversibility), what happens on conflict with an existing id, or any rate limits — significant gaps for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the two mode recipes, then the access prerequisite. 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% schema description coverage, the description covers the main happy paths and auth requirements but omits any handling guidance for the undocumented 'sources' parameter and gives no indication of failure modes. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only id and idempotency_key are described). The description partially compensates by explaining the roles of hive, title, body and id, but the 'sources' array is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, and the min/max length constraints on body are not surfaced.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('durable knowledge to the comb'), and it goes further by spelling out the two operating modes: new entry (hive+title+body) vs. new version of an existing one (id+body). It stops short of naming or contrasting a sibling such as comb_confirm, so it does not fully meet the 5 criterion of sibling differentiation.

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?

It clearly states the conditions that select each mode — supply hive/title/body for a create, id/body for a revision — and names prerequisites ('Worker tier and above', 'Needs a signed request'). There is no explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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