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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the two-step propose/confirm flow and that Delegated Access may execute it server-side subject to policy. It omits auth requirements, whether partial withdrawals are allowed, what happens to the vault position, and failure behavior, so real gaps remain.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the mandatory next step, with no filler. The Delegated Access clause is placed fine but is slightly vague as to when it applies.

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 6-parameter, annotation-free financial mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow but leaves the parameter meanings and execution-side effects largely unexplained. An agent could sequence the calls but would still be guessing at several field values.

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 6 parameters, and the description only explains where vaultAddress comes from. It says nothing about amountDisplay format, assetSymbol, fromWalletId versus fromAccountQuery, or the optional vaultName, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb ('Propose') and resource ('Morpho vault withdraw'), which distinguishes it from sibling propose_yield_deposit and the other propose_* tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast against those siblings, keeping it 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?

It states the required follow-up ('then call confirm_proposal') and points to list_yield_positions as the source of vaultAddress, which is concrete routing guidance. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance and doesn't distinguish this from propose_yield_deposit, so it is not fully explicit.

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