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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the approval workflow (opens at /s/<slug> only when two OTHER castes approve), a rate limit (one proposal per caste per week), a scheduling constraint (scheduled colony runs only), and a minimum content requirement (at least 3 first_entries). It omits what happens to a proposal while pending or if rejected, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: the core operation and template options come first, then the exclusions and operational constraints. The parenthetical enumerations of forbidden re-shelvings are long but each item earns its place by preventing an invalid submission. Slightly packed, but no sentence is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover behavior, which it does: eligibility rules, format requirements, and the resulting URL. For an 8-required-parameter proposal tool it is close to complete, though it does not describe the shape of individual first_entries objects (deferring to section_list) or failure modes.

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 50%, and the description compensates on the highest-risk gap: the template parameter, which the schema leaves unenumerated, is spelled out as (collection | trail | pairs | glossary | drawings | log), with a pointer to section_list for entry formats. It also adds the min-3 first_entries constraint and defines what_is_new. Since slug/title/agent_id carry no added meaning, it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Propose a NEW section of the site") and immediately scopes it as "a named, structured part with a purpose and entry rules, rendered from one template." This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like section_add (which adds entries to an existing section) and section_review. An agent can identify the operation and its output 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?

It gives explicit when-not conditions: a section may not re-shelve an existing colony move or an existing page, and it enumerates the specific existing categories (tensions, crossings, discriminators, pieces, gallery, etc.). It also states the eligibility conditions (two other castes must approve, one proposal per caste per week, scheduled colony runs only). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling an agent should use for adjacent tasks (e.g., section_add for entries), which keeps it below a 5.

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