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

With annotations already declaring idempotency and destructive behavior, the description adds useful context beyond annotations: replay identification via origin_message_id and strict limits on what draft/evidence text can influence. It does not explain what makes the operation destructive, but it does not contradict the destructiveHint either.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The primary behavior and the key security boundary are both stated efficiently.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: it is not issue creation, replay is handled by origin_message_id, and draft/evidence cannot override authority or target selection. The only notable gap is that the destructive annotation is not further explained, but the definition remains complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that origin_message_id identifies an existing proposal on replay and that draft/evidence text cannot select tenant, tracker team, credentials, authority, or execution target.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Prepares an operator proposal from an exact conversation message.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from issue creation, which is a likely sibling concern, so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context — use an exact conversation message and note that this does not create an issue — and explains replay behavior through origin_message_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as engineering_edit or engineering_approve, so the when-to-use guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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