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

With only readOnlyHint=false from annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that this WRITES stored state, that it is not safe to repeat blindly, that illegal moves are refused by name, and that each move emits a chained identity event. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the annotation declares.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: authority and action come first, then per-state requirements, then the mutation warning. The mid-section is a long semicolon-heavy run-on that slightly hurts scannability, but no clause 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 a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, this covers authority, per-state prerequisites, error behavior, and idempotency risk. Missing only the meaning of resource_status and any indication of what the call returns.

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 coverage is only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps optional parameters to specific target states (voting_closes_at for voting, proposal_id for sponsor-selected, evidence as a single https URL for shipped, reason for cancelled). The slug and resource_status parameters remain unexplained, and the enum values in resource_status are never referenced.

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 and resource ('move a grant') plus the actor authority ('Sponsor or maintainer only'), which distinguishes it from siblings like grant_propose and vote that operate on grants at other lifecycle stages. An agent can identify this as a lifecycle state-transition tool without opening the schema.

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 explicit conditional requirements per target state: voting needs voting_closes_at, sponsor-selected needs proposal_id, shipped needs an https evidence URL, cancelled needs a reason. It does not, however, name when to prefer this over an alternative tool (e.g. grant_propose), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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