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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the blast radius ('only that stored proposal changes'), the zero-cost nature ('Free'), the two-phase preview/commit gate, and non-idempotency recovery guidance ('reconcile... before retrying'). These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with verb, scope and side-effect bound; the one-word 'Free' earns its place as a cost signal. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 mutation scope, cost, the confirm gate, and recovery for a mutation tool with no output schema. It doesn't indicate what the preview response contains, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning to confirm (preview vs. committed write, owner-approval precondition) and to proposal_id (must be an id returned by soclo_page_autopilot). This contextualizes how the parameters interact rather than merely restating them.

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 verb (reject) and a precisely scoped resource (one existing proposal returned by soclo_page_autopilot), and rules out broader effects with 'only that stored proposal changes.' The pairing with siblings like soclo_page_autopilot_approve makes the direction of the action 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?

Gives clear gating context: omit confirm for a preview, pass confirm:true only after the owner approves, and reconcile a lost write reply with soclo_page_autopilot before retrying. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative action (approve) for accepting a proposal, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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