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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the two behaviors that matter most: changes are proposals that 'always' go through human admin review, and secrets/access are out of scope. The base_version dependency implies an optimistic-concurrency check, which is useful context not present in the annotations. It does not describe what a rejected or pending proposal returns, but the key behavioral facts are covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisite, then the review/no-secrets constraints. Every sentence adds information and none restates the tool name or the schema.

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 write-shaped tool with 11 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important workflow facts (read version first, human review, secrets excluded) but leaves the meaning of most inputs unexplained. Adequate to avoid misuse of purpose, not adequate to call it correctly without schema guessing.

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 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely does not meet it. Only the version parameter is hinted at ('Read its version using read_resources first'); rationale, evidence, idempotency_key, project_id, service_id, and the unexpected result_offset are never explained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Propose metadata/documentation changes to a linked shared service,' and narrows scope with 'no secret/access changes.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as submit_changes, amend_changes, or create_service, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 states a concrete prerequisite and ordering ('Read its version using read_resources first') and names an exclusion ('no secret/access changes'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of saying when to choose this over submit_changes or amend_changes, which are the closest alternatives.

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