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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description explicitly says a replacement stays a draft while the current version remains in force, which implies a non-destructive proposal lifecycle. This directly contradicts the annotation, so the score is 1 despite the useful lifecycle context otherwise provided.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first sentence names the action and resource, the second states key prerequisites, and the third explains the replacement lifecycle. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value beyond 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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what a successful proposal returns or what the agent should expect next, but it does not. It also omits the meaning of the scope variants and does not reconcile the destructiveHint annotation with the stated non-destructive replacement behavior. For a complex nested mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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 documents projectId and idempotencyKey (67% coverage), and the description adds meaning by connecting 'owner, validity and explicit reuse scope' to proposal fields, plus the optional knowledge asset and replacement behavior. However, it does not explain the scope variants, date-time constraints, or the replaces object details, leaving the nested proposal partially undocumented.

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 a sourced business claim') with a source constraint ('from a reviewed evidence version') and an optional target ('optionally under an existing knowledge asset'). It also distinguishes itself from approval/retirement siblings by explaining that a replacement stays a draft and needs separate human approval.

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 clearly: use this tool to propose a sourced claim or a replacement draft. It gives useful context such as required owner, validity, explicit reuse scope, and the need for separate human approval, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like request/apply/confirm business claim approval or retire_business_claim.

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