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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds workflow context (creates JobTasks and a plan revision requiring member approval), but says nothing about permissions needed, whether re-proposing replaces prior plans, or side effects on existing tasks.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the action and its two effects. Efficient, though it could say marginally more given the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with three required params, 0% schema description coverage, nested task objects, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the proposed_by semantics and any detail about what a task object requires, leaving the agent under-informed before calling.

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 carries the burden. It only loosely references team and tasks via 'under the team'; the required proposed_by parameter is never explained, and the nested task fields (deps, payment, description) are not addressed at all.

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 (propose) and resource (plan) and adds the concrete side effects: creating JobTasks under the team and a plan revision for approval. This distinguishes it from siblings like amend_plan and approve_plan. It stops short of explicitly naming those 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?

The phrase 'for members to approve' implies this initiates a plan that later needs approval, suggesting it precedes approve_plan/amend_plan. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus amend_plan, so usage is only implied.

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