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

Beyond the sparse annotations (destructiveHint=false, title only), it discloses the important two-phase behavior: this only creates a proposal and nothing changes until confirm_action, and it names the unlock_shareflo lock prerequisite. It stops short of explaining proposal lifecycle details such as how to review the pending proposal or that it can be discarded.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then omission semantics, then the proposal/confirm and unlock caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, omission semantics, the lock prerequisite and the confirm gate. The main remaining gap is that it never indicates what the proposal response/UID looks like even though there is no output schema documenting it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a genuinely useful cross-cutting rule beyond the per-parameter text — "Give only the terms that change; omitted terms keep their current value" — and scopes the call to a single holding. It adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

"Proposes changing the vesting terms of one holding, or an option holding's exercise price" gives a specific verb, resource and scope, and clearly separates it from siblings like stop_vesting and exercise_options (which are true mutations, not proposals). An agent can identify the tool 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?

Explicitly states the omission semantics ("Give only the terms that change; omitted terms keep their current value") and the prerequisite "Requires unlock_shareflo to have been called first", plus the workflow step "nothing changes until confirm_action". It does not, however, say when to prefer this over the sibling stop_vesting for removing vesting entirely, or how a proposal is later inspected/discarded.

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