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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns a proposal without applying it, re-running only proposes again and replaces saved items for the same targets, it applies nothing, and it may take several minutes with progress notifications. The write behavior (saving suggestions) is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the purpose before workflow routing, and nearly every sentence carries actionable information. It is somewhat long and dense, but the detail is justified by the multi-step workflow rather than padding.

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 complex, multi-step, write-related analysis tool with an output schema, it covers the proposal-vs-apply distinction, downstream routing, fallback ordering, re-run semantics, and latency. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description restates 'by UUID' for the target requirements but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (analyze), resource (selected requirements by UUID), and outcome (propose revisions or removals). It clearly distinguishes itself from CRUD siblings and from suggestions_accept/reject by framing itself as the proposal-generating step.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: accepted items go to suggestions_accept, declined to suggestions_reject, and recreating with CRUD tools is forbidden. It also sequences the fallback (use suggestions_list, and only if absent, create via CRUD), covering when-not and alternatives thoroughly.

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