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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses real behavioral traits: the proposal variant is created as a copy of the source variant's schema and starts in DRAFT state. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate-limit or uniqueness constraints on displayName.

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 first sentence establishes the action and UI equivalence, and the following sentences layer state, returns, next step, and arguments in a sensible order. Five short sentences are all relevant, though the return-value sentence partially duplicates the output schema.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, creation semantics, initial state, next step, and all inputs. The remaining gap is operational context such as required permissions or whether creating a proposal has side effects on the graph, which for an open-world mutation tool would be worth stating.

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 must carry the burden, and it does: it maps all four parameters to roles and marks description as optional, matching the three required fields. It does not give format hints (e.g., whether graphId includes a variant suffix), and it calls displayName "title," a minor naming mismatch.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Create a schema proposal against a source variant") and anchors it to a known UI action in GraphOS Studio. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the follow-on PublishProposalRevision and implying this tool only creates the empty DRAFT container.

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?

It states the sequencing explicitly ("To add schema changes, call PublishProposalRevision next"), which tells an agent this is a first step, not a complete workflow. It also lists required vs. optional inputs. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool exclusion is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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