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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the write/destructive profile is structured. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the call only proposes rather than finalizing — but it leaves open what happens next (does it create a pending change that must be confirmed?) and does not reconcile 'proposes only' with the destructive hint.

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?

Two very short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the key constraint. The fragment 'Proposes only' is terse but effective; no wasted words.

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 mutating, destructive-flagged tool with no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not say what a 'proposal' produces, whether a follow-up confirmation call is needed, or what happens to the underlying step. The single behavioral nuance is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 50%; additional_information is documented in the schema, but micro_action_id has no description anywhere, and the description adds no meaning about how the id is obtained or what additional_information is used for. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('propose marking ... done') and resource ('a micro-action step'), and the 'Proposes only' clarifier distinguishes the intent from the name's implication of actual completion. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent confirmation/change tools such as confirm_change or discard_change.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether an agent should call this instead of other step-completion or change-confirmation tools, nor what preconditions (e.g., a pending change) must hold. The only implied usage is that a proposal is preferred over direct mutation.

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