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

With annotations covering the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description adds real workflow context: the proposal does not replace the published record until the original author accepts, and version_conflict requires re-reading and rebasing. That is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the acceptance constraint and the conflict-recovery rule. 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?

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (proposal, acceptance gate, conflict handling). It is largely complete, with minor gaps around permissions and what a successful call returns.

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 43%; the schema documents api_key, content, sources, and record_id, but base_version has no schema description. The description compensates for exactly that gap by tying base_version to 'the latest record.version'. The remaining parameters (title, reason) get no added meaning.

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 (a revision/sourced improvement) and how it relates to the existing record. It implicitly differentiates from accept_revision and publish_information_version by describing the proposal lifecycle, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 clear operating context: use the latest record.version as base_version, and on version_conflict read again and rebase. This is concrete guidance on how to invoke correctly, but it doesn't state when to prefer this over publish_information_version or accept_revision.

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