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

It discloses the key behavioral trait that changes are not applied immediately and await owner approval. This complements annotations like destructiveHint=false by clarifying that even delete proposals are pending, not directly destructive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerates the operations and the pending-approval workflow with no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description supplies the crucial workflow context (pending approval) and enough orientation to choose between actions. It could more directly tie the prose operations to the action enum values, but the schema already handles that.

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 input schema already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond mapping actions like 'reverting' and 'deleting' to the schema's action enum, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('propose', 'reverting', 'deleting') and names three distinct operations. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the change stays pending until approval, implying a separate decision tool finalizes it.

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 description gives three explicit use cases: proposing a better fact, reverting to an earlier version, and deleting a document. It signals that this tool only creates pending changes, which routes final approval elsewhere, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool.

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