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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses auth requirements, stage restrictions, the null-to-clear semantic that explains the destructiveHint=true annotation, the active-member constraint on the sponsor, and the plan gate. This aligns with and enriches the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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?

Roughly six short clauses, all front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by permissions, constraints, alternative, null semantics, and plan gate. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with 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 mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the aspects an agent needs: who may edit, which stages permit edits, where stage transitions belong, how to clear fields, and the plan gate. Nothing operationally required is missing.

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 coverage is only 23%, so the description must compensate; it addresses the nullable-field semantic ('pass null to clear') and the sponsorId active-member requirement, which is valuable. However, it leaves most of the 13 fields (priority/riskLevel enums, currency, budget, etc.) unexplained 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?

States a precise verb and resource (update business-case fields on a governance proposal) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling advance_proposal_stage by declaring that stage transitions do not happen here. An agent can tell exactly what this tool mutates versus what it does not.

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?

Names the authorized actors (submitter, org.governance.review), the valid stage window (DRAFT through ON_HOLD), the alternative for stage moves (advance_proposal_stage), and the plan gate (governance ENTERPRISE+). When-to-use and when-not are both explicit.

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