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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the Microsoft sign-in and blog.write scope, that it 'Saves nothing' (crucial since readOnlyHint=false could mislead), the hard limits (12 changes, 160 rewritten words each), and the human-in-the-loop decision step. Consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the auth prerequisite, then purpose, then mechanics and handoff — a sensible order with no filler. Slightly dense long sentence around 'ask: true, a form where the client shows one' costs a point on readability.

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?

A mutation-proposal tool with an output schema (redline_text), so return values needn't be explained. Auth, limits, non-persistence, the show-then-apply loop, and the form fallback are all present; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 75% and already documents id, base_hash, ask, and the nested change fields, so the baseline is 3-4. The description adds value the schema lacks: the 160-word cap per replacement, the exactness requirement for find, and the meaning of a blank replace ("" removes the passage) is emphasized at tool level.

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 (changes to a filed draft as a redline the engineer decides on), and immediately positions it against siblings update_draft and apply_edits. An agent can distinguish propose_edits from apply_edits (accept/commit) and update_draft (direct writes) from the text alone.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use it for every fix to a filed draft, instead of update_draft', plus the follow-up path ('send what they accept to apply_edits'). It also names the escape hatch (ask: true when no draft app is showing), so when and when-not are both covered.

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