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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully confirms the human-approval gate ('nothing changes until the owner reviews') and discloses the Bearer-token auth requirement, which annotations cannot convey. It does not elaborate on what a rejected or duplicate proposal does, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct load: purpose, evidence rule, review workflow, auth. The core action is front-loaded and there is 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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the auth requirement, the non-immediate-effect guarantee, and the evidence constraint — the three things an agent most needs before calling. What a successful call returns (proposal id, status) and what happens to duplicate proposals are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real validation rule not present in the schema: the quote must be word-for-word from the source AND must itself state the value being proposed. That couples the quote and value parameters in a way an agent would otherwise miss.

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 ('Suggest a new value for a cell') plus the distinguishing mechanic (a proof quote, owner review before any change). An agent can tell this is a proposal workflow rather than a direct write like fill_cells, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'The owner reviews it before anything changes' implies the propose-then-approve flow versus a direct edit, so the context is inferable. But it never names fill_cells or any other sibling as the alternative, nor states when not to propose (e.g., already-correct cells).

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