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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description adds real behavioral context: side effects are deferred until human confirmation, acceptance fills the brief editor, nothing is published, and the response includes a review link. It does not say what happens to prior or superseded proposals, which keeps it short of a 5.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?

Front-loaded with what the proposal contains, followed by side-effect and limit information. Slightly redundant: 'nothing is published' and 'Stores a proposal only. Nothing happens until...' make the same point twice.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the result includes the review link. For a staged-write tool with a nested object parameter, the remaining ambiguity (answer key format, proposal lifecycle) is modest rather than blocking.

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 only 25%, so the description carries partial burden and does add meaning: 'per-rule answers' clarifies the answers object, and the 64,000 UTF-8 byte cap on the whole proposal clarifies how the fields interact. It still says nothing about the keys allowed in the nested answers object or about the required summary field, leaving real gaps.

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 and resource ('a proposed update to the person's local brief draft') plus the fields it carries (title, markdown, per-rule answers). The clause 'nothing is published' implicitly separates it from the sibling propose_brief_publish, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the operating model clearly: 'Stores a proposal only. Nothing happens until the person confirms it on welance.com/directory.' That tells an agent this is a staged, non-committing action. It never explicitly names propose_brief_publish as the alternative for actually publishing, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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