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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the goal is staged as a proposal and is not applied until an admin approves it in Leemu. It does not detail what happens on rejection or whether duplicate proposals are possible.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key approval constraint, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 25% param coverage, the description adequately covers the approval workflow but says nothing about the required title/description inputs or what the caller receives back. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 25% — only 'priority' has a description in the schema. The description adds no meaning for title, description, or targetDate, so the undocumented parameters are left unexplained 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?

States a specific verb (propose) and resource (strategic goal) with scope (multi-quarter) and purpose (for human review). It implies a distinction from create_strategic_goal via the 'review' framing but never names that sibling, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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 'for human review' framing implies when to reach for this tool rather than a direct create, but no alternative is named and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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