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

Annotations declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds valuable governance context: owner review compares base/head revision, pending or rejected updates keep the approved version live, no URL execution or installation, and no fee or payout transfer. State-transition behavior is partially covered but the 'Preserve request/body/capability for replay' sentence is fragmented and ambiguous.

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 serviceable sentences, but the final sentence 'Preserve request/body/capability for replay' is telegraphic and lacks a clear referent, which wastes space rather than adding value. Not bloated, but front-loading is weak.

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 nine required parameters, no output schema and a nested proposal object, the description provides some governance context but leaves major gaps: the lifecycle of an update, capability/secret handling, and what constitutes a valid proposal. Adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 33%, so the description should compensate but instead mentions no parameters by name. Nine required parameters exist, and terms such as base/head revision implicitly relate to base_version and expected_head_revision, but creator_capability, creator_secret_hash, request_id, terms_version and proposal are not explained. Significant 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: proposing a higher metadata version of an approved tool. The phrase 'with the original private capability' is oddly worded and doesn't clearly delimit scope against submit_tool, but the core action is identifiable.

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?

Implied usage for updating an already-approved tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling submit_tool as the alternative for first-time submissions. The agent must infer the distinction from 'approved tool'.

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