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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful non-schema behavior: the operation does not commit, is flagged and off by default, costs $0.10, and requires an API key. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action before adding availability, cost, and auth details. It is compact and avoids repetition, though the phrasing is somewhat cryptic.

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, nested-object tool with zero schema description coverage, the description omits critical invocation context: what a proposal contains, how it relates to commit_life_update, and what the parameters mean. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but parameter guidance is essentially absent.

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 schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It provides no parameter-level meaning beyond the vague phrase 'assertion create/correct,' leaving parameters such as value, operations, predicate, source_text, and idempotency_key entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action (propose assertion create/correct) and immediately distinguishes it from committing by saying 'without committing.' It implies the contrast with commit_life_update without naming the sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from alternatives.

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 phrase 'without committing (flagged; off by default)' implies when the tool is relevant: when staging a proposal rather than finalizing one. However, it never explicitly names commit_life_update or states when to use this versus committing, so usage remains inferred rather than spelled out.

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