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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavior: default lane when status is omitted, special lane semantics for BACKLOG and EXPERIMENTING, the not_proposed failure for non-AI proposals, and the needs_confirmation two-step flow. These are exactly the kind of operational details annotations do not cover.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then sibling contrast, status semantics, failure mode, id source, and confirmation behavior. Every clause contributes useful information, though the single long paragraph is heavier than strictly necessary.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context an agent needs: the proposal-only constraint, the optional status lane, failure behavior, id sources, and the confirmation flow. Nothing critical appears missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining what the status lanes do (BACKLOG parks, EXPERIMENTING starts, omitted lands in NEW) and by identifying where opportunityId values come from. It does not fully explain the workspace or approvalId parameters, but those are already documented in 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 and resource ('promotes an AI-PROPOSED opportunity ... into the workspace's own pipeline') and explicitly distinguishes it from the nearest sibling, compass_opportunities_set_status. An agent can identify what this tool uniquely does without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool versus compass_opportunities_set_status ('set_status does NOT do this — a proposal stays in the Inbox until accepted'), names where ids come from, and states the failure condition (not_proposed) and confirmation flow. This is near-complete routing guidance.

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