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

Annotations already mark this readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces the key trait ("Does NOT write") while adding real context the annotations don't cover: the diff-envelope review workflow and the staging-then-apply sequencing with update_icp. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its return value, then routing and prohibition. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return (diff envelope structure), and it covers the staging/apply relationship fully. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 agent_id, proposed_icp_filters, and proposed_icp_description are all documented in the schema. The description only repeats that update_icp needs "the same agent_id and proposed fields" without adding format or syntax detail, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 ("Stage a proposed ICP edit") and describes exactly what it produces (a diff envelope with current vs proposed and fields_changed). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_icp, which is the apply/write counterpart.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("when the user describes a change in plain language"), an explicit prohibition ("never call update_icp directly without first staging here"), and a named alternative with its condition (update_icp, confirm-tier, same agent_id). Routing is unambiguous.

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