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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY'. It adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: source text is excluded by default, can reach 200,000 characters, and contains personal remarks. It doesn't mention permissions/access behavior for expectedProjectId, which the schema covers instead.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that each carry weight: what is returned, why the tool matters, and the source-text caveat. Emphasis caps (ONE, NOT, READ-ONLY) aid scanning without waste, though the loop-closing sentence is slightly rhetorical.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does describe the per-operation decision and result enumerations. A mutation-adjacent read tool with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage means an agent has enough 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 all three parameters are already fully documented, including includeSourceText's default and size warning. The description restates the includeSourceText behavior (not returned by default, 200,000 chars) but adds no syntax or meaning the schema lacks, so the 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 (reads back) and resource (ONE proposal), and enumerates exactly what it returns: operations, per-operation human decision (accepted/rejected/pending), application result (applied/skipped_conflict/skipped_noop/invalid) and reason. The 'ONE' emphasis cleanly distinguishes it from list_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?

Explicitly frames the tool's role: it 'closes the propose loop' and without it 'you never know what became of what you proposed', which gives a clear trigger for calling it after propose_changes. It does not explicitly name list_proposals as the alternative or state when-not to use it, so it stops 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.