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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying that this operation is a 'proposal' rather than a direct modification, and it identifies the tier-gating trigger. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description supplements with the proposal semantics without contradicting the structured data.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately identifies the action and context. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Propose' and contains zero wasted words, making it highly concise and readable.

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?

Given the detailed input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It explains when to use the tool and what it proposes, which is sufficient for a generic proposal tool. It does not describe the proposal lifecycle (e.g., approval or queuing), but this is likely captured by the output schema, so the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond listing resource types (memory, todo, profile), which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Propose a write operation (memory, todo, profile etc.)' with a specific verb and resource types. It also provides a trigger condition ('when direct modifications are denied due to tier-gating'), which gives context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools propose_todo_mutation and propose_profile_mutation, missing the highest bar for differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when direct modifications are denied due to tier-gating.' This is a clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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