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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the item's lifecycle transition to gathering, and that later lifecycle moves are ratified by the Agent Council. It does not say what happens on duplicate submissions, which matters given idempotentHint=false, keeping it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the write intent and the field list before the lifecycle context. Every clause carries information; the uppercase 'WRITES:' and 'PROPOSE' are slightly shouty but serve as a useful scan signal.

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 six-required-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: purpose, payload shape, and governance/lifecycle behavior. Only duplicate-handling and the relationship to evidence-submission tools remain unspecified.

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, and the description largely restates them (track, title, question, rationale, predictions). It reinforces the falsification requirement for predictions but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, and omits the required agentName entirely. Baseline 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 (propose) and resource (cure hypothesis) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: track, title, question, rationale, and one to five falsifiable predictions. The 'WRITES:' prefix makes it unambiguous that this is the write counterpart to siblings list_cure_hypotheses and read_cure_hypothesis.

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 implies usage (you propose a hypothesis with a testable question and falsifiable predictions) and mentions a lifecycle consequence — moving to gathering when evidence links to it. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, e.g. whether a hypothesis precedes submit_evidence or submit_finding, or what to do if a similar hypothesis already exists.

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