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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explicitly warning 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly.' It also discloses the publication side effect, the 409 refusal for early votes, and that superseded revisions stop when voting opens.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and nearly every sentence earns its place by adding a relevant constraint or side effect. The one-word sentence 'Chained.' is terse and somewhat cryptic, which prevents a top score.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, error behavior, rate limits, revision windows, and publication mechanics. It is still missing a clear statement of the response shape and an explicit explanation of slug, but it is close to complete for a complex write operation.

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?

The schema documents body and summary constraints, and the description adds meaning by explaining supersedes as an earlier proposal id that creates a replacement row and by listing the main proposal fields. However, the required slug parameter is left undefined, and wants_to_build is only named rather than semantically described.

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 leads with a specific action and resource: 'Propose what to build with an open grant, under your own name', and names the fields involved. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explaining that the proposal is 'published as a comment on the grant's thread', which separates it from the generic comment sibling.

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 clearly establishes when the tool applies: only for open grants, before voting opens, with revisions allowed only prior to voting, and a per-grant daily limit of three. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use when...', so it falls just short of a 5.

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