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

The annotations already flag a non-read-only, destructive operation, and the description adds the crucial nuance that this is a pending proposal requiring user confirmation and must never be reported as done. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations (a resolution/confirmation handshake) rather than a restatement. It stops short of saying what the proposal returns or how long it stays pending.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, the confirmation caveat, and the id-provenance rule. The most consequential warning (proposes only, not done) is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.

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 no-output-schema tool with a nested object parameter, the description covers the two things an agent would most likely get wrong: treating the proposal as completed and inventing ids. Minor gaps remain about the proposal's returned handle and whether additional_information is preserved verbatim on the task.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two required ids by giving their provenance (get_household_balance / list_household_members) and forbidding fabrication. The third parameter is the only one documented in the schema (as verbatim extra details), but the description adds nothing about id format or what additional_information is used for downstream.

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?

'Propose moving a specific task to a different household member to rebalance the load' gives a concrete verb (propose), a concrete resource (task ownership) and the motivating goal. The phrase 'Proposes only' immediately distinguishes it from an executed reassignment, so an agent can tell it apart from assignment-style siblings without opening schemas.

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 states the situation to use it in (rebalancing load across household members) and gives explicit prerequisites: fetch ids from get_household_balance or list_household_members first, never guess ids. It does not explicitly name what to call instead when the user wants a direct, non-proposed assignment, so the exclusion is implied rather than spelled out.

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