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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states that the write is scoped to the session cabin, not the original file, that the engine recalculates, that stale proposals are refused, and that repeats are no-ops. This gives the agent a strong model of side effects and failure behavior.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs the essential caveats—recalculation, stale-revision refusal, and idempotency—without unnecessary words 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?

Given one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains where the proposal comes from, the file scope, recalculation behavior, concurrency failure, and repeat behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only defines proposal_id as a string with length constraints; the description adds the crucial semantic that this ID comes from sheet_propose_edits and is tied to a specific workbook revision. It does not describe the ID format, but the schema covers the basic constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('apply') with a clear resource ('a proposal from sheet_propose_edits') and target ('the workbook in this session's cabin'). It also distinguishes the sheet-specific operation from the sibling document_apply and clearly ties it to sheet_propose_edits.

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 makes the companion workflow explicit: obtain a proposal from sheet_propose_edits, then apply it; if the revision has moved on, propose again. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the prerequisite and failure recovery are clear enough for correct selection.

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