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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: it is a commit/mutation step gated on human confirmation, it can fail on insufficient permission, and it depends on a prior unlock call. It does not say whether the commit is reversible or what a success response looks like, but the safety-relevant behavior is well covered and consistent with destructiveHint.

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?

Four short sentences that each carry distinct load: purpose, confirmation precondition, permission failure mode, and unlock prerequisite. The purpose is front-loaded with 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, precondition, failure mode, and dependency. The only real gap is that it never hints at the return/result of a successful commit, which an agent may want when chaining calls.

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% and the schema already explains that proposal_uid comes from the tool call that created the proposal (e.g. create_holding). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Commits one existing action proposal to the cap table'), which separates it from the create_* siblings that generate proposals in the first place. The word 'existing' plus the required prior unlock makes the two-step flow unmistakable.

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 triggering condition ('only after the user has actively confirmed the exact proposal shown to them') and the prerequisite ('Requires unlock_shareflo to have been called first'), naming the sibling tool by name. There is nothing left to infer about when to call it.

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