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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a real write that atomically records contribution terms, that contribution_terms is an optional exact pin, and that evidence_contract is advisory and does not affect ballot eligibility. It does not cover permissions or error/rollback behavior, but the key side effects and semantic nuances are explained.

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 dense and long, but nearly every clause adds needed field semantics for a complex nested payload. It is front-loaded with the core purpose; a bulleted list or schema-like layout would improve readability, but there is no filler or tautology.

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?

Given a complex single nested parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the input payload thoroughly enough for an agent to construct and submit a correct proposal. It omits response/return behavior and explicit permission requirements, but the invocation path and field semantics are substantially complete.

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?

The input schema only says 'The full proposal payload,' so the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It enumerates the required/optional fields, explains the problem field's compatibility fallback, specifies contribution_terms pinning, and describes evidence_contract structure and layered semantics for legacy strings vs bounded objects.

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 opens with the specific action 'file a construct proposal,' naming both the verb and the resource. Referencing the POST /api/v1/proposals endpoint and enumerating the proposal fields disambiguates it from sibling tools like vote, second, or replace_vote.

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 description clearly implies its use when filing a construct proposal and gives detailed field semantics, but it never states explicit conditions for use or names alternatives/asides. There is no 'use X instead' guidance, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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