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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: passed fields overwrite old values, which clarifies the destructive semantics at field level (omitted fields are preserved). It doesn't cover permissions or failure behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact sentences with the 'WRITE:' marker front-loaded so the agent immediately knows the operation class. The endpoint string is mildly redundant with the tool name but harmless; no filler.

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?

With 9 params at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation class and overwrite behavior adequately for correct invocation. It does not explain what a successful response contains or error conditions, a minor gap.

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% with formats, ranges, and per-field explanations (tax fractions, date pattern, currency pattern), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the overwrite note, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('change fields of a proposal') and names the HTTP method/path. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like bidsketch_update_proposal_section or bidsketch_update_proposal_fee, leaving that differentiation to the name alone.

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 partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass are sent and overwrite the old values') tell the agent how to call it, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling update_* tools for sections or fees, nor any prerequisite context.

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