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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable nuance: this tool only creates a pending proposal and nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called. It also discloses that transactions assigned to the budget are preserved and only the budget itself is removed, giving the agent accurate expectations about side effects and timing.

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 compact despite covering workflow, prerequisites, side effects, and MCP proposal semantics. Each sentence carries distinct operational information, and the most important scoping sentence is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent it gets a proposal id and what to do with it, including the exact confirm_proposal call and user-approval condition. It also covers the lookup prerequisite, transaction preservation, and the pending-proposal nature, making the tool safely invocable.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both envelopeId and editsProposalId. The description repeats the lookup-before-call guidance and the retarget/omit behavior, but adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Propose deleting an existing budget (envelope).' It immediately distinguishes itself from confirm_proposal by stating it returns a proposal id and that a follow-up confirm call is required. It also clarifies that it only creates a pending proposal, separating it from direct deletion or upsert operations.

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 an explicit precondition: look up the budget with the budget tool first and pass its id. It also says exactly when to call confirm_proposal (after user approval) and why (no UI button or proposal card to click in this context), plus when to omit or pass editsProposalId. This is a complete workflow guide for correct invocation.

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