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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete acceptance constraints (must apply cleanly, ≤256 KB, ≤50 files, no renames/mode changes/binaries/.github/workflows/), the naming scheme for stored proposals, supersede semantics ('its content is kept'), and the key reassurance that nothing changes on GitHub — which resolves the tension with destructiveHint=true.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before constraints and optional behaviors. Every sentence carries information, though the constraint list is packed tightly and could be slightly more scannable.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the operational constraints, storage/visibility behavior, task-linking rules, and the external side-effect boundary. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds a little beyond the schema (origin of base from city_room_repo/city_room_repo_read, claim_token required alongside task_id), but does not add syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — 'Propose a patch to the repository connected to a room' — and specifies the artifact (unified diff against an exact base commit with a one-line summary). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like city_room_proposal and city_room_proposals.

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?

Conveys the workflow context (stored as proposal P<n>, shown as a diff in the room, optionally linked to a held task via task_id plus claim_token, and that 'Nothing changes on GitHub'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this, but the surrounding conditions are clear.

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