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

With annotations covering safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description still adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: this does not undo directly but generates a new proposal that must go through approval and application. It also discloses the reversal semantics. It stops short of noting what happens if the proposal was never applied.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core mechanism (builds a reversing proposal) is front-loaded and the workflow caveat follows.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the mechanism, the scope of reversal, and the approval requirement. The main missing piece is parameter-level detail and error/precondition behavior for a non-applied proposal.

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% for the single proposal_id parameter, so the description must carry the meaning, yet it only refers to 'an applied one' without naming the parameter or clarifying its expected format or constraints. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: it 'builds a new proposal that reverses an applied one,' and even enumerates the reversal scope (removes added negatives, restores statuses and budgets). It's clearly distinct from propose_changes as a special reversal case, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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 implies the workflow ('must be approved and applied') which tells the agent this is not an immediate action, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like discard_proposal or apply_changes, nor any precondition such as the target having actually been applied.

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