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

Annotations only give the coarse safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds substantive context the annotations cannot: the tool does not apply changes, requires user review, may run for several minutes, and emits progress notifications with elapsed time. It never states whether the proposal is persisted, which leaves a small gap.

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?

Five compact sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. The mid-stream instruction sentence ('Create accepted new subsystems before applying their links') blurs the boundary between what this tool does and what the caller should do next, which slightly muddies an otherwise tight structure.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still covers side-effect profile, latency, progress reporting, and the apply-vs-propose workflow. For a 4-parameter, annotated, output-described tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are self-documenting and the baseline is 3. The description indirectly references 'optional interface contracts' (mapping to generate_interface_contracts) but adds no meaning for granularity or user_message beyond what the schema already states.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Propose subsystem additions, changes, deletions, requirement assignments, and optional interface contracts') and the fourth sentence clarifies the output is a non-applied proposal. This distinguishes it from CRUD siblings like subsystems_create/subsystems_update, though the word 'Propose' is slightly softer than the tool name 'detect'.

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 prescribes the follow-up workflow clearly: review the proposal with the user, then apply accepted changes 'using the existing CRUD tools', and create new subsystems before linking them. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative detection tool, but the boundary against the apply-tools is well drawn.

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