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

The description discloses that this tool creates a proposal (Inbox diff) rather than a direct mutation, which is critical behavioral context. It also explains the resync behavior ('re-stamps the staleness signal on adopt') and adds a caution ('Never set it on an ordinary edit'). With only destructiveHint:false provided, the description adds substantial behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds critical operational detail. It is dense but not verbose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the most nuanced behaviors: the proposal/inbox-diff pattern, the need to fetch the system first, the resync condition, and the rename/bundle parameters. Remaining parameters (acknowledge_rejection, project_id) are covered by the schema, so the description is sufficiently 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 high (89%), but the description goes beyond schema by clarifying the purpose of new_title ('renames'), context_title+context ('bundles the Idea update'), and resync ('ONLY when you rewrote this spec FROM its upstream Idea'). It also emphasizes that spec must be the 'FULL revised spec,' which is not fully captured in the schema's 'Full revised spec markdown'.

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 'Propose a system UPDATE → Inbox diff,' which clearly states the verb (update), the resource (system), and the resulting artifact (inbox diff). This distinguishes it from siblings like propose_system, update_element, and update_task, which target different resources or actions.

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 gives explicit sequential guidance: 'get_system first' and 'send the FULL revised spec.' It also conditionally references resync_from_idea ('see resync_from_idea') and clearly states when resync:true should be used. It does not explicitly list alternatives for when to use propose_system, but the purpose statement makes that distinction obvious.

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