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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: the proposal goes to a workspace approval queue where a person selects the target, edits, and approves before anything runs; Gmail actions only ever save a draft; approvals are impossible over MCP. It also discloses failure modes via the return shapes, including a duplicate early-exit error and an actions-disabled error.

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-loads the most important fact (nothing runs yet), then layers triggering examples, approval mechanics, dedupe guidance, and return contract in that order. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 4-param proposal tool with no annotations, this covers the full picture: what it does, when to invoke it, the human-approval lifecycle, dedupe procedure, and both success and error return shapes. Even though an output schema exists, the explicit error cases (duplicate, disabled) fill the gaps an agent would otherwise guess at.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the accepted action_type values and the gmail.create_draft/wiki.reverify_page caveats. The description reinforces the Gmail draft behavior but adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource — "File a ticket, message, event or draft for a person to approve" — plus the critical qualifier "Nothing runs yet." An agent can immediately tell this is a propose-for-human-approval tool, distinct from execution-oriented siblings.

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 explicit triggering conditions (user asks to create a Jira/Linear/GitHub issue, post to Slack, book a calendar hold, draft email, add Notion page/Zendesk note) and names the alternative: check the queue via ``list_proposed_actions`` first to avoid duplicates. It also states the boundary clearly — over MCP you cannot approve or run anything.

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