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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails. It implies a mutation but does not state whether proposalMarkdown replaces the entire document, whether edits are reversible, whether editId is an optimistic-concurrency token, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should cover permissions, overwrite semantics, and the meaning of the editId token. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it correctly with confidence.

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%, so all four parameters (including the required editId/workspaceId/proposalMarkdown) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the baseline.

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 (update) and resource (proposal) plus an intent (track execution progress), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like save_proposal or set_proposal_status, leaving the agent to infer which mutation path applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus save_proposal (create/overwrite) or set_proposal_status (status transitions). The phrase 'track execution progress' hints at a scenario but names no alternative or precondition.

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