Create, edit, or delete a private intel feed

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is structured. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the 3-feed organizational quota and the intel:write permission requirement, both of which affect whether the agent should attempt the call. It stops short of explaining what a delete destroys (feed only vs contained items) or the preview/confirm flow implied by the schema.

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 core action, followed by the two constraints most likely to block a call. No redundancy or filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission, and quota adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. The one gap is that the delete preview/confirm workflow and the blast radius of a delete are left to the schema alone.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the action enum and the confirm flag's preview semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 verb set (creates, updates, deletes) and a clear resource (private intelligence feeds), so the CRUD nature is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_customer_intel_feeds as the read-only alternative, but the action scope separates it adequately.

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 gives constraints (3-feed quota, intel:write requirement) but no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling list_customer_intel_feeds tool. Usage is implied by the CRUD framing rather than directed.

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