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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it states the tool 'Stores a proposal only,' 'Nothing happens until the person confirms it on welance.com/directory,' and the result includes the review link. It also discloses that each changed field becomes a separate approval card, that inferred values are rejected for certain fields, and how team hourly rates override blended member rates.

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 dense and long, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized by entity type and field group. Nearly every sentence carries useful constraints or routing information, though the semicolon-separated wall of detail could be easier to scan.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers entity selection, field constraints, inferred-value restrictions, the proposal-only confirmation workflow, and the review link in the result. Minor gaps remain around the required summary parameter and some change metadata fields, but the schema fills those in.

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?

With only 10% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the semantic burden and does so well: it explains entity values, the changes array structure, skills rating and removal, addLangs/removeLangs two-letter codes, hourly_rate units and range, team hourly null-override behavior, and shipped-entry add/remove semantics. It does not explain the required summary parameter or the evidence, sourceId, and attachmentId fields in the description, leaving some schema-level details to the schema itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Proposed field changes to one entity,' and then enumerates exactly which entities and fields are covered. It makes the tool distinguishable from read_profile and other propose_* siblings by clarifying that this creates profile-change proposals rather than reading profiles or proposing bookings/pitches.

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?

It gives clear routing guidance across entity types: person is the signed-in person's own profile, member requires teamKey + memberKey for a confirmed colleague, team requires teamKey, and organisation requires organisationId. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as read_profile for viewing or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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