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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is an upsert (creating on first use) and a partial write (only listed paths are written). These are important mutation semantics, though it does not cover permission or error behavior.

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 core action and followed by the partial-write rule and approval guidance. There is no wasted text.

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?

The description covers the critical behavior for a complex mutation tool: upsert, partial update paths, and approval routing. An output schema exists, and the main remaining gap is lack of detail on updatePaths format or plan field usage.

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 meaning to updatePaths by saying only listed paths are written, which is valuable because the schema does not document updatePaths. However, with low schema description coverage and many nested plan fields, it still leaves most parameter semantics to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it sets fields on the raise plan and creates it on first use. It also distinguishes the direct update path from the sibling propose-change path, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer proposing the change and to call this tool directly only after founder approval. That names the alternative behavior and gives a clear condition for choosing this tool.

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