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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a suggestion is non-authoritative ('does not confer publisher authority') and does not immediately mutate the declaration, plus the auth/permission requirement (connected identity + community:comment) and retry guidance. The retry instruction overlaps with idempotentHint=true, so it's additive rather than fully new, keeping this from 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information (action, non-effect, prerequisites, retry rule), though the retry sentence is the least essential.

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 non-read-only tool with a nested 5-field object and no output schema, the description supplies prerequisites and retry behavior but omits what happens after proposing (review/approval flow, relationship to apply_correction) and the meaning of several subfields. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carries the burden. It does clarify that a suggestion needs a source URL and a quote excerpt and mentions request_id semantics on retries, but 'path_id' and 'proposed_value' semantics, the field enum, and the entry_id target are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('a field change') with the required evidence ('official source and excerpt'), and immediately distinguishes itself from apply_correction by clarifying it does not alter the declaration or confer publisher authority. An agent can tell this is the proposal step, not the mutation step.

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?

Gives the precondition for use ('Requires the connected identity and community:comment') and implicitly positions it as the pre-apply step, which is enough to route away from apply_correction/resolve_correction. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives or saying when-not to use it.

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