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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains why the operation is destructive (CLOSED abandons the proposal), discloses that invalid transitions raise a ValidationError naming the rule, and names the returned fields (proposal ID and new status). The approval-count precondition on APPROVED is exactly the kind of runtime constraint an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then status semantics, then error/return behavior, then the required inputs — every block earns its place. The final sentence partially restates parameter names already obvious from the schema, adding only the GetProposal hint, so there is minor redundancy.

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 annotations, an output schema, and three required params at 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing transition rules, the validation failure mode, and the parameter sourcing guidance. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret failures.

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 0% and the ProposalStatus enum descriptions are empty, so the description carries the load: it states all three required inputs and adds real meaning by explaining each status value and by noting that the variant name comes from GetProposal. It stops short of describing graphId format or how to obtain it, so not a 5.

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 and resource ("Change the status of a schema proposal") and anchors it to a known UI action ("the same action as the status menu in GraphOS Studio"), which makes the scope unambiguous. It also enumerates the status values and their meanings, so an agent can distinguish this from CreateProposal, ReviewProposal, or PublishProposalRevision without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the semantics of each target state (DRAFT for work in progress, OPEN requests review, CLOSED abandons) and states an explicit precondition for APPROVED plus a hard exclusion (IMPLEMENTED is never accepted from this tool). It does not explicitly route the agent to a sibling for the approval action itself, which keeps it from a 5.

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