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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that this is a proposal rather than an immediate effect, the activation threshold (2 backers or a steward), and the side-effect guarantee that URLs never change. It omits permission requirements and what the proposal returns.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before edge-case semantics and the approval threshold. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 3-parameter proposal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers operation modes, target semantics, approval threshold, and a key side effect. The main remaining gap is what a successful call returns (e.g., a proposal reference) and any caller restrictions.

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 must compensate, and it partly does: 'target' is explained (topic id, empty for root) and the merge value of 'action' is called out, while the enum already carries move/merge. The 'topic' parameter itself is never described, leaving one of three parameters fully undocumented.

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 (move/merge) and resource (topic), and clearly distinguishes its two modes: re-parenting versus merging into another topic. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 mode-selection guidance ('target = topic id, empty for root' for a move; 'action merge' for a merge) and the approval context ('takes effect at 2 backers or a steward'). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the action choice is unambiguous.

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