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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already signal it's a non-read, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds 'revision-safe,' implying versioning, but does not disclose concurrency behavior (e.g., optimistic locking via expected_latest_revision), permissions, or limits. It provides some value beyond annotations but remains vague.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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 tool has 5 parameters (0% schema coverage), no behavioral annotations beyond basic mutation hints, and an output schema (but not described), the description is incomplete. It omits critical context: the expected_latest_revision parameter for conflict detection, what 'owned engagement' implies (permissions), and typical use cases. The agent lacks sufficient information to invoke the tool reliably.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (body, kind, title, engagement_id, expected_latest_revision). The phrase 'proposal or SOW draft' hints at kind, and 'owned engagement' hints at engagement_id, but this is insufficient for an agent to understand required input formats, constraints, or the role of expected_latest_revision.

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 tool creates a 'revision-safe proposal or SOW draft on an owned engagement,' specifying the verb (create), resource (consulting document revision), and scope (on owned engagement, with kind limited to proposal or SOW). It distinguishes from siblings like update_consulting_document_revision or approve_consulting_document_revision.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'on an owned engagement' but does not clarify prerequisites, exclusions (e.g., when to update vs. create), or compare to similar tools like update_consulting_document_revision. The agent would lack context for proper selection.

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