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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/idempotent, so the description correctly focuses on the domain behavior: this moves a proposal between board states and requires grounding status changes in actual customer statements. It stops short of saying whether the change notifies anyone, what happens if the proposal doesn't exist, or whether note is mandatory for the terminal statuses.

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, both front-loaded: the write verb and status vocabulary first, then the constraint on when terminal statuses are legitimate. Zero 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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers every parameter, the full status set, and the key business rule. Missing only failure-mode behavior and whether the call triggers side effects such as notifications.

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 0% and status has no enum in the schema, so the description carries the burden — and it delivers the full status vocabulary plus the meaning of note ('put what they said'). It also frames proposal_id/proposal_uuid as interchangeable identifiers, though it doesn't say which wins if both are supplied.

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 ('Move ... on the board'), the target resource (an offer identified by proposal_id or proposal_uuid), and enumerates the exact target states DRAFT | SENT | REVISION | ACCEPTED | REJECTED. This clearly separates it from siblings like send_customer_proposal, create_customer_proposal, and list_customer_proposals.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule: use ACCEPTED / REJECTED / REVISION only when the customer said so in the conversation, and record what they said in note. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., send_customer_proposal for dispatching the offer), so routing guidance is contextual rather than fully comparative.

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