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

Beyond the annotation destructiveHint=false, the description discloses key behaviors: proposals go to the Inbox, and if adopted, they replace any same-named board. This is critical context about the proposal lifecycle. It does not detail response formats or further side effects, but the annotation already covers the destructive safety aspect.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences covering purpose, node kinds, and adoption behavior. Every sentence adds unique value; no filler or repetition of schema fields. It is structured logically from function to details to side effect.

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 proposal tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage: target destination, node content, naming conventions, and replacement warning. Missing is any mention of the response or proposal ID, but the core operation is well-specified.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning to the 'nodes' parameter by specifying allowed kinds (const, formula, item, etc.), that formulas reference blocks by NAME, and that omitting x/y enables auto-layout. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'e.g. {kind...}' example. It does not clarify project_id, leaving a small gap, but the key content parameters are well explained.

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 clearly states the tool proposes a node board into the Inbox, with a specific verb ('Propose') and resource ('node board'). The list of supported node kinds (const, formula, etc.) distinguishes this from other proposal tools like propose_balance_table, which targets a different format. Though it doesn't explicitly name siblings, the unique board focus makes purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: to propose a balance board composed of nodes, with formulas referencing blocks by name. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear for a proposal workflow. The '→ Inbox' phrase indicates it is for submitting proposals rather than direct edits.

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