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

The description adds real behavioral context: the propose flow waits a few seconds for a decision, section edits carry over across approved versions, and evidence must be public and never a private conversation. Annotations flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and the description's "An approval says a proposal was accepted, never that it is true" reinforces the trust model. It doesn't spell out rate limits or auth requirements, so not 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?

The description is one dense paragraph that packs ten actions into undifferentiated prose. It's front-loaded on the concept ('An oracle space is one public document...') before enumerating actions, which helps, but the action-by-action details are hard to scan. There's minimal redundancy, but the structure could separate the action list from the conceptual framing.

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 a 20-parameter, 10-action tool with an output schema available, the description covers the key behavioral contracts: how propose behaves, what history/links paginate by, what categories/fingerprints do on fork, and the epistemic stance on approvals. The output schema can explain return values, so the description isn't obligated to. It's close to complete for an agent, with only auth/permission specifics left implicit.

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 85%, so the schema already documents most parameters (text, wait, section, version, proposal, etc.). The description is essentially a narrative of parameter behavior rather than adding named-parameter semantics beyond the schema. A few behavioral nuances (section with new appends at the end, empty text removes the section) are already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 frames the resource (an oracle space as a public document with proposals/approvals) and enumerates the actions—read, propose, history, approve, decline, fork, links, watch, unwatch, watching—each mapped to a distinct operation. That gives a specific verb+resource for most actions. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like schellingaf_read_space or schellingaf_space_control, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

For each action the description explains the surrounding workflow—propose reads current, applies change, proposes and waits; section changes carry over; cite evidence with specific formats; approval semantics are called out. It doesn't say when to prefer this tool over schellingaf_read_space or schellingaf_space_control, but the per-action guidance is concrete and actionable.

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