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

Annotations declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds non-obvious semantics they don't: that a different authenticated client is required to confirm, and that the creating client cannot self-confirm by changing source_model. It does not describe rate limits or the effect on the proposal's lifecycle beyond 'locks it'.

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 sentences with no filler; the action, the confirmation/locking constraint, and the usage condition are front-loaded in that order. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

Given no output schema and a mutation tool, the description still conveys the outcome ('confirms and locks it') and the authentication constraint. It is nearly complete; only output/return behavior and pagination-style operational details are absent, which is understandable without an output schema.

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 only 20%, so the schema documents almost nothing beyond source_model's meaning. The description mentions source_model subtly ('changing source_model'), which reinforces that field's role, but the other four parameters (subject_id, reason, evidence, evidence_fingerprint) receive no clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does little and the description adds marginal value.

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+resource: submitting evidence-backed agreement with the subject's existing provisional type, confirming and locking it. Distinguishes itself from propose_subject_reclassification by scope (affirm existing vs change), though it does not explicitly name 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 a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use this when the current type is already correct and no stricter descendant is justified.' It also discloses a key exclusion: the creating client cannot self-confirm. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool (e.g. propose_subject_reclassification).

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