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

Since there are no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It successfully adds behavioral constraints (size limits), but it fails to describe the nature of the 'propose' action—is it immediate, does it trigger alerts, or what is the expected status of the document afterward? The required cryptographic parameters are not explained.

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 definition is relatively concise, though its first sentence mixes the purpose with the deliverable format. The structure is logical, though it could benefit from separating the 'what it does' from the 'how it is limited' constraints.

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?

Given the high complexity (8 required parameters, crypto involved) and the extremely low schema description coverage, the definition is highly incomplete. An agent cannot reliably fulfill the request without external documentation explaining the required technical fields.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides almost no semantic value beyond listing the final required structure for signing. It does not explain the purpose of the required metadata or cryptographic parameters (like 'nonce' or 'signature'), which are critical for an agent understanding how to construct the payload.

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 clearly states the core purpose: suggesting a change for review. It specifies the supported mediums (Markdown or spreadsheet), successfully distinguishing it from direct editing tools like 'edit_markdown'.

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 provides crucial constraints regarding document size (24,000 bytes) and revision integrity (rejected if the document grows), which serves as a guideline. However, it does not explicitly state the workflow trigger or when this tool is preferred over other contribution methods.

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