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

With destructiveHint=true already supplied by annotations, the description still adds substantive consequence information: acceptance supersedes any published packet, opens a new draft, requires all signatures to be re-collected, and notifies all affected founders. That is exactly the kind of irreversible-effect detail an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Purpose and consequence are front-loaded, but the back half is generic governance boilerplate (Canonicality, Idempotency, Confirmation boundary) that does not add tool-specific value. 'plus every prerequisite stated above' is also a dangling reference to text not present in this description.

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?

Behavioral consequences for a destructive, open-world mutation are well covered, and no output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a nested _corply_context object, the parameter story is materially incomplete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only mentions 'with a reason'. formationId, requestId and the decision enum are left entirely to the schema, and _corply_context receives no explanation at all.

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 pair (accept/reject) and resource (a founder's formation-change proposal), plus the actor constraint 'only the incorporator may'. It does not name the sibling propose_formation_change, but the phrase 'founder proposal' makes the counterpart inferable, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 qualifying condition for calling ('only the incorporator may accept/reject'), a prerequisite (authenticated active company access) and an explicit 'confirm before accepting'. It never states when NOT to use this tool or names the alternative path, so it stops 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.