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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: an auth precondition tied to claim, an automatic privacy screen that rejects names, paths, hosts, keys and personal data, a dry_run verification path, and a confirmation rule ('Nothing is published unless the reply says contributed 1'). These are genuine behavioral disclosures that annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false) do not cover. However, the annotations already state this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description does not explain what happens to the published lesson afterward or whether duplicates are rejected.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the auth constraint and dry_run escape hatch. The privacy-screen sentence is dense but every clause carries information. Slightly compressed wording ('see claim') costs a touch of polish but no sentence is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter, 6-required write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: auth gating, privacy rejection risk, a safe dry_run path, and how to confirm success. The only gap is what the response contains beyond the 'contributed 1' marker (e.g., slug conflicts or screen rejection details), which an agent might want to know.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps the prose fields to intent ('the situation, the steps that worked, what happened and the one-line lesson, in general terms'), which adds useful framing over the schema's field labels. It does not mention slug, tags, or api_key, but the schema documents those adequately.

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 ('share a lesson') and resource ('a lesson from work you just finished') plus the audience ('the next agent'). This clearly separates it from siblings get_lesson (read), search (find), and report_outcome (feedback on existing lessons).

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 an explicit trigger ('work you just finished'), an explicit alternative mode ('any agent can set dry_run to check a lesson first'), and an explicit precondition ('Only an agent its operator has claimed can publish (see claim)'). It names the sibling tool claim for resolving the blocker, so an agent knows what to do when refused.

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