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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful context by clarifying that no map edge is persisted, which resolves the ambiguity created by readOnlyHint=false (i.e., it records a pending suggestion, not a live edge). It stops short of describing what happens to the suggestion afterward (moderation/queue/expiry).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping constraint ('never creates a map edge') is placed where it matters. Slightly terse, leaving room for a routing clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 not be explained, and the input schema is rich (nested refs, enums, bounds). The description is adequate on behavior but leaves the when-to-use-this-vs-add_map_content question open, which matters for a mutation-flavored tool.

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% across 6 parameters (from, to, relation, rationale, source_urls, client_submission_id), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The heavy lifting falls entirely to the structured schema (SubmissionRef, relation enum, rationale length bounds); the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (suggest a connection) and resource (two published targets), with the 'for review' qualifier that signals it is a proposal rather than a committed change. It distinguishes the action reasonably well from add_map_content, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'For review' and 'never creates a map edge' imply this is the non-committal alternative to actually adding map content, so usage is inferable. However, no alternative tool is named and no condition is given for when to prefer a suggestion over a direct edge creation.

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