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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose key traits: it operates on the session's cabin, not the original file; it refuses stale proposals and instructs to propose again; and repeating an applied proposal is a no-op. These go beyond a simple statement of intent and give the agent actionable knowledge about side effects and edge cases. It does not mention success/failure return values or other side effects, but for a simple mutation tool this is adequate.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information: the action, the scoping to the session's cabin, and the two edge cases (stale and repeat). There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and clear sibling context, the description is largely complete. It covers the main purpose, the working context (session cabin), and the two critical behavioral caveats (stale and repeat). It does not describe the return value or error responses beyond the stale case, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It mentions 'proposal from document_propose_replacement', implying that proposal_id is the identifier returned by that tool, but it does not explicitly define proposal_id or its format. The description also mentions that a stale proposal is refused and repeating is a no-op, which indirectly explains the role of proposal_id. However, an explicit statement like 'proposal_id is the ID returned by document_propose_replacement' would strengthen this. The implicit reference is enough for a straightforward tool.

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 states the action: 'Apply a proposal from document_propose_replacement to the document in this session's cabin'. It specifies the verb 'apply', the resource (a proposal), and the target (the session's cabin document). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing the proposal tool and clarifying it does not modify the original file. This fully differentiates it from other document tools.

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 the workflow: you must first have a proposal from document_propose_replacement, and if the proposal is stale you should propose again. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the reference to the specific source tool and the 'propose again' instruction provide clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool. It could be improved by explicitly stating 'use this after document_propose_replacement', but the intent is clear.

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