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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds crucial context: the tool only creates a pending proposal and nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called. It also discloses that existing transactions are kept and only the budget is removed, clarifying side effects. This significantly enhances the agent's understanding beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential workflow details in a few sentences. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information. Structure is logical: purpose → return value → next step → lookup instruction → side-effect note → proposal-only caveat.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: what it does, what it returns, how to use it, what happens to associated transactions, and the critical 'nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal' caveat. An agent can successfully invoke this tool without additional external context.

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 100% with descriptive parameter comments, so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context: 'Look it up with the budget tool first' for envelopeId and explains the purpose of editsProposalId in the context of retargeting a previous proposal. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 opens with the specific verb+resource combination 'Propose deleting an existing budget (envelope)' and immediately clarifies the proposal nature, distinguishing it from actual deletion. It also names the follow-up tool (confirm_proposal) and the lookup tool (budget), making the purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling propose tools like propose_budget_upsert or propose_delete_transaction.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to look up the budget first with the 'budget tool' and pass its id, and states that there is no UI button or proposal card in this context, so the agent must use confirm_proposal to record. It also provides guidance on using editsProposalId for updating an existing pending proposal, including how to look up current ids via listPendingProposals. This is clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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