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

The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the call stages a proposal instead of applying the edit immediately. It does not explain what happens on confirmation, whether partial updates preserve untouched fields, or whether a proposal can be superseded, and the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) already carry the mutation-safety profile. Because 'Proposes only' is the sole behavior disclosed, a 3 is fitting.

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 short sentences with the field list front-loaded and nothing extraneous. The fragment 'Proposes only.' repeats the verb already used in sentence one, costing a little density, but the definition is easy to scan.

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 7-parameter mutation/proposal tool with a nested object, 29% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains the proposal lifecycle, what the caller gets back (a proposal id?), or how additional_information is preserved. The propose-only disclosure is valuable but insufficient to call this complete.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description carries real weight, and it does name 5 of the 7 editable fields. But it adds no meaning beyond enumeration (no format, partial-update, or null/clear semantics), uses 'energy' where the schema property is 'energy_required', and omits task_id and additional_information entirely.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Propose editing') plus the resource ('a task') and enumerates the editable fields, so an agent can tell it apart from create_task, find_task, or complete-style siblings. It does not explicitly name the proposal/confirmation siblings it pairs with, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

'Proposes only' implies this is the entry point to an approval workflow rather than a direct mutation, which gives implied guidance on when to call it. However, it never states when NOT to use it, nor points to confirm_change/discard_change for completing or aborting the proposal, so the workflow routing is left to inference.

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