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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by indicating proposals go to an 'Inbox' and that the tool is for new systems only, implying it does not modify existing ones. This complements the annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences convey the action, destination, spec format, and the key alternative, with zero filler.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core behavior (proposal → Inbox), the critical spec format, and the alternative for existing systems. It does not explain all optional parameters, but the schema covers them, and the description is adequate for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds critical meaning for the 'spec' parameter by specifying the required Markdown format: '## Goal / ## Boundary (Owns · Doesn't own) / ## Acceptance.' This goes beyond the schema's generic mention.

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 action and resource: 'Propose a NEW system → Inbox.' It specifies the destination and distinguishes from update_system (for existing systems), making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 this tool ('NEW system') and an explicit alternative: 'Exists? use update_system.' It does not explicitly exclude other propose_* siblings, but the resource (system) is distinct, so the guidance is sufficient.

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