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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'record verified implementation' but does not disclose any side effects, what state changes occur, what the tool returns, or whether it is idempotent. For a mutation-like action, the lack of behavioral disclosure leaves agents guessing about consequences.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the key facts: role restriction and the action. It has zero filler and is front-loaded with the most important information. Perfect conciseness for a simple tool.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the parameters, the expected evidence format, the meaning of revision, or what happens on success. Agents cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional information, making the description inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 provides no explanation of the three required parameters (id, revision, evidence). The agent is left without any hint about what each parameter means or how to populate them correctly. Since coverage is zero, the description must compensate but fails entirely.

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 identifies the action ('record'), the object ('implementation of an administration-approved proposal'), and the conditions ('verified', 'unchanged'). It distinguishes this from siblings like propose_update (which creates changes) and list_proposals (which lists) by stating it's about recording verified implementation. A specific verb and resource with qualifiers make the purpose 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?

It explicitly restricts usage to 'Steward only' and specifies the precondition 'verified implementation of an unchanged administration-approved proposal'. This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly say 'when not to use'. The role and condition are strong guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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