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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-idempotent operation; the description adds the key nuance that this creates a proposal rather than changing the plan directly, and that the counterparty decides whether to adopt it. It does not detail side effects like notifications or persistence, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the trigger condition and carries the essential constraints without filler. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 proposal tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, revision-basis, and outcome constraints. It leaves optional parameters undocumented and does not describe the response or follow-up mechanics, but the core invocation context is complete enough for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies baseRevision (current revision the user saw), field (single-field suggestion), and reason (must be explained), but leaves requestId, value, and the optional quote/comment undefined. Core required params are partially covered, optional params are not.

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 action (submit a single-field suggestion) on a clear resource (cooperation clause change) and scopes it to user-requested modifications. It explicitly says the tool does not directly modify the plan, which distinguishes it from edit/save-style sibling tools.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('only when the user explicitly requests a modification'), a prerequisite (base off the current revision the user has seen), and a required behavior (explain the reason). It also states the other party decides adoption, making it clear this is not the direct-edit path.

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