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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by specifying that a reviewable delta is created while the pack is not mutated. This gives a concrete side-effect picture beyond the structured hints, with no contradiction.

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 no waste: the action comes first and the side-effect caveat second. It avoids restating the title or schema.

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?

Covers the core invocation context and non-mutating behavior for a simple 2-parameter tool. However, with no output schema and no explanation of how proposals are surfaced or what a reviewable delta entails, an agent still has to infer part of the workflow.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It only loosely maps 'successful run' to runId and 'a proposal' to proposalIndex, without explaining how proposalIndex relates to run output or how to identify a successful run. This is too thin to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 action (select a proposal) and a concrete outcome (creates a reviewable delta, does not mutate the pack). The resource is clear enough to differentiate from accept_ai_pack_growth, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like select_ai_pack_growth_version.

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?

Implies when to use: after a successful run and when a non-mutating, reviewable delta is desired. It does not state exclusions or directly name the accept/select alternatives, so routing among the many sibling tools 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.