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

Without an output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does it well: it explains that a proposal is created, names the returned fields (proposalId, silenceApprovesAt, voteUrl), states the caller never approves, and flags the single-open-proposal constraint. Annotations only say the call is not read-only and not idempotent; the description adds the real behavioral contract.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is dense with necessary conditional behavior. It is somewhat compressed into run-on clauses with internal jargon ('restime', 'editObject') and typos ('rikma'), which costs a little clarity but not much length.

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?

Covers the mutation's effect, the proposal lifecycle, the membership prerequisite, the one-open-proposal limit, and points to external docs — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around what happens on failure or which fields are required versus optional, though the schema handles the latter.

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%, and the schema already labels name/price/descrip as 'A term', categories as 'Operational — applied at once', and pricingMode as personal-products-only. The description restates that terms become a proposal, which is useful framing but largely duplicates structured data. No new syntax, format, or validation meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly which fields can change (name, description, price, pricing mode, categories). It also splits behavior by product type (rikma vs personal), which an agent needs. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as updateRikmaProductTool, setProductCategoriesTool, or proposeProductEditsBatchTool, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 clear usage context: terms become a proposal on a rikma product, apply immediately on a personal product, categories always apply at once, and members only. It also states a precondition — one open proposal per product, answer it first if one exists. The gap is that it never names the alternative tool to use when a direct update or a batch edit is what's wanted.

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