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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: each real state flip sends a message and push notification to the other party, and the agent should confirm the intended change with the user before initiating. It does not fully describe what happens to already-pending proposals when negotiation is paused, but it adds substantial behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: permission scope comes first, followed by side effects, confirmation guidance, and a caution against toggling. Every clause carries useful operational information without unnecessary repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation toggle with no output schema and only an idempotency annotation, the description covers the essential permission, side-effect, and confirmation requirements. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and the effect of disabling negotiation on existing proposals.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It conveys that requestId refers to the current request and enabled controls whether proposing/accepting modifications is allowed, but it does not explain parameter constraints, defaults, or exact meanings beyond this high-level mapping.

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: controlling whether the current cooperation request allows proposing or accepting modification suggestions. It clearly identifies the resource (current request) and the state being toggled, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as propose_cooperation_change.

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 specifies who may use the tool (only the original plan author) and the prerequisite (after explicit instruction), and it cautions against repeated toggling. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for correct selection.

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