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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether 'Propose' creates a pending/approval-gated objective or an active one, what permissions are needed, whether it can overwrite existing objectives, or what the side effects are.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse to fully orient the agent, but structurally it is clean and efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the definition omits key context: the 'Propose' workflow, prerequisites, and how it relates to sibling objective tools. This leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 7 parameters (plan_id, title, owner_id, owner_type, sort_order, description_md, agent). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Propose'), resource ('objective'), and scope ('under a plan'), so an agent can grasp the basic action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings like memory_strategic_objective_update or memory_strategic_plan_set, and the mismatch between 'set' (name) and 'Propose' leaves the exact semantics unclear.

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 phrase 'under a plan' implies the precondition (a plan must exist) and the context in which to use it. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus objective_update, nor any when-not guidance or note about approval/gating.

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