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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the write is deferred pending author acceptance, the record is not replaced immediately, and a version_conflict is a realistic outcome with a defined recovery ('read again and rebase').

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 compact sentences with the core constraint front-loaded and the error path last. Slightly terse in that 'sourced improvement' and 'rebase' are assumed vocabulary, but no sentence is wasted.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is proposed, when it takes effect, and how to recover from a conflict. It omits what the call returns (e.g., the new revision reference or resulting version) and any permission requirements, but the core flow is adequately described.

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 only 43%, so the description must carry weight. It meaningfully explains base_version ('using the latest record.version as base_version'), which is the crux parameter, but sheds no light on title, reason, sources, record_id, or api_key beyond what the schema already contains.

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 names a specific verb and resource (propose a sourced improvement to a record) and clarifies the mechanism via base_version. It implicitly distinguishes from accept_revision and publish_information by noting the change is not applied until the author accepts, though it never names those siblings.

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?

It states the governing condition clearly ('does not replace the published record until its original author accepts') and gives remediation for a failure mode ('On version_conflict, read again and rebase'). It does not explicitly contrast with accept_revision or explain when to propose vs. publish, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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