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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Ajouter' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not state side effects, permissions required, whether contributions are immediately visible, whether parent_id creates threaded replies, or any other behavioral consequences. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action verb and immediately lists the supported content types. There is no redundant wording, filler, or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema provides complete parameter documentation, so the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should add at least some usage context and behavioral expectations; it currently leaves the agent to infer that this attaches to a proposal and what happens after the contribution is added.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only paraphrases the 'kind' enum values without adding deeper semantics about parameter relationships, formatting, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the param documentation load.

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 uses a clear action verb ('Ajouter') and enumerates the specific contribution types it handles (argument, objection, question, evidence, minority opinion), which distinguishes it from proposal-creation and voting siblings. It could be stronger by explicitly naming the target resource 'proposal,' but the combination with proposal_id in the schema makes the purpose understandable.

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 description implies the tool should be used for adding contributions to a proposal but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It does not mention that proposal_id must reference an existing proposal or that this is different from creating or submitting a proposal.

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