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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-idempotent write. The description adds valuable context by stating that submission 'grants no code access and no ACTE,' clarifying a key consequence. It does not disclose all side effects, but the annotations lower the burden.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the operation and resource are front-loaded, followed by the payload fields and a key caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the envelope type, required action, payload content, and a key consequence. It omits return behavior and review workflow, but those are not necessary for invoking the tool 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?

The schema only describes the envelope as a signed object with action proposal.submit. The description adds the substantive payload fields (problem, improvement, benefit, evidence, risks, verification plan), giving concrete guidance on what the envelope should contain.

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 uses a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('Ed25519-signed proposal') and lists the proposal's contents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling submission tools like submit_ai_book_appeal and submit_ai_contribution_claim.

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 intended use is implied by the name and the phrase 'improvement proposal,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling submission tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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