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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that the call merely initiates a review and that no verification, contract, or payment work occurs in this release — exactly the kind of side-effect scoping an agent needs.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the precondition and the capability limit both front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and an idempotency annotation already supplied, the description covers preconditions and side-effect limits well. The remaining shortfall is parameter-level guidance, which is only partially covered here and only half-covered in the schema.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description names no parameters directly. Its one semantic contribution is implying that proposal_id must refer to a mutually accepted proposal; the note and token parameters are documented only in schema text, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb+resource: asks a human to review authorization, and adds the triggering state 'after both sides accept'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from accept_nonbinding_proposal by positioning this as the post-acceptance step, though it does not name a sibling 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?

The precondition 'after both sides accept' gives a clear trigger, and the second sentence explicitly bounds expectations ('starts review only... which this release does not offer'). Neither a named alternative nor a full exclusion list is given, but the when-to-use and when-not-to-expect-results guidance is unusually clear.

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