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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation only saves a proposal, does not itself request agreement, and expectedRevision implements optimistic concurrency. It does not fully explain the destructive implications hinted by destructiveHint, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds operational value. The action mappings and optimistic concurrency note are dense but not padded.

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 nested-object tool with no output schema, the description provides strong workflow context and constraints, especially that every analysis requirement must be mapped. It leaves some revision-parameter semantics to the schema, but the combination of schema and description is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates meaningfully by explaining the action enum semantics: fill_existing for supplied forms, create_new for new deliverables, attach_existing for unchanged attachments, and reference_only/request_missing for missing items. It also highlights required language and rationale per item and clarifies expectedRevision's concurrency role.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'propose the complete sourced multi-document plan' after RFP analysis. It also distinguishes this tool from related siblings like read_document_plan, request_plan_agreement, and confirm_plan_agreement by stressing that this step only saves a proposal for user presentation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('After RFP analysis') and states the workflow position ('present it to the user before requesting agreement'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the sequencing and action-mapping guidance make the intended usage unambiguous.

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