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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the saved body, status, and revision are untouched, and the suggestion is not sendable. That scope clarification is valuable for an agent choosing between this and accept/dismiss siblings.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the two most important behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the side-effect semantics are well covered. The gap is parameter meaning: with 0% schema coverage and three params, the definition leaves the agent guessing about wordingId vs proposedBody.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (wordingId, proposedBody, note). With low coverage the description should compensate by explaining what wordingId identifies and what proposedBody/note mean, but it does not.

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+resource: 'Record a proposed replacement.' The follow-up sentences distinguish it from mutation siblings by clarifying it does not alter the saved body, status, or revision. It doesn't name the accept/dismiss siblings explicitly, but the non-mutating framing differentiates it adequately.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for staging a proposed replacement that is not yet sendable, which hints at a draft-before-accept workflow. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or reference to accept_sendable_change/dismiss_sendable_change as follow-ups is given.

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