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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive submission tool. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: reports go into a private review queue and nothing is published automatically.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and examples are front-loaded, followed by key behavioral context.

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 simple reporting tool with complete schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete. It could clarify what happens after submission, but the private review queue detail already addresses the main behavioral concern.

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 meaning of slug, what_failed, and what_you_tried is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline of 3.

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The description states a specific action and resource: telling the human maintainer that a board entry is wrong or outdated, with concrete examples. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as report_experience, share_field_note, or contact_owner.

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 description implies when to use it by describing cases like a moved board or a broken instruction file. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives among the available sibling tools.

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