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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, closed world). The description adds a meaningful precondition – standing via a finding or satisfied rung – which is genuine behavioral context. It does not describe what happens after submission (review/voting outcome), so the governance flow remains undisclosed.

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 verb front-loaded in caps and no filler. The enumeration of kinds is long but earns its place by scoping what can be proposed. Efficient overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the burden of explaining the result of proposing, but it stops at eligibility. For a governance mutation tool, the agent knows what is required to submit but not what happens next (approval, voting, lifecycle), leaving a real gap.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description echoes 'rationale' and 'falsifier' and the 'kind' enumeration but adds no syntax, format, or vocabulary detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (propose) and resource (amendment) and enumerates the amendable kinds (objective, open question, norm, method, priority, template, glossary term, revert). This lets an agent distinguish it from read_amendment and mint_method. The domain jargon 'the board' is opaque, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 eligibility prerequisites ('needs standing (one finding or one satisfied rung), a rationale and a falsifier'), which is useful gate information. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like mint_method, publish_ladder, or council_action, nor any when-not-to-use condition. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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