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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-readOnly mutation, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description needn't restate it. It usefully adds the state-transition precondition ('change is live') and the approval gate, but says nothing about permissions, who may invoke it, or what side effects marking-done triggers.

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 tight sentences with the audience scoping front-loaded ('For an AGENCY'), followed by the key preconditions. No filler, though it could be marginally denser.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the audience, the when-to-use conditions, and the approval requirement, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly appears missing.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that 'item' is an id from my_optimization_proposals. The description reinforces the approval condition ('items the client said Yes to') but adds no new format or syntax detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('mark an optimization ... as done') and scopes it to an AGENCY audience. It implicitly ties to the my_optimization_proposals sibling via the item id, which helps distinguish it from the draft/send proposal tools, though it doesn't name an alternative directly.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: 'once the change is live on their profile' and 'Only items the client said Yes to.' These tell the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternative tools for the unapproved or not-yet-live cases.

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