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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral outcome: 'Accepted and built proposals are credited publicly to their author on the site.' It also explains the expected author format, which is non-obvious. It does not detail the submission process or possible responses, but the public-credit disclosure adds meaningful context beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the purpose. The attribution guidance and proposal-quality advice are valuable but the second sentence is dense and could be tightened. Overall, each clause earns its place, and the format is clear and readable.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, author format, and proposal quality. It lacks details on what happens after submission (e.g., response or workflow) and does not explicitly mention the title field, but the core information a user needs to construct a valid submission is present. Given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly 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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains the 'author' field via attribution guidance and implicitly describes the 'description' field by advising that good proposals are concrete (what would an agent do, measure, etc.). However, the 'title' parameter is never mentioned, leaving a gap. The guidance for author and content is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Propose a new exhibit or an improvement to the playground.' This unambiguously states the tool's action and scope. It also naturally distinguishes from the sibling tool 'proposal_browse' by the action of submitting vs. browsing.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to propose exhibits/improvements) and includes specific attribution guidance for the 'author' field. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention proposal_browse, but the purpose is clear enough that a user would know this is for submission, not browsing.

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