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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description carries the rest and does so well, disclosing the authorization prerequisite (requires unlock_shareflo first), the runtime failure modes ('may refuse it if the user lacks permission or the cap table changed since the proposal was made'), and the one-proposal-per-call constraint. This is substantially more than the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loads the action and its scope before the conditions, and every sentence carries a distinct constraint (provenance, approval gate, alternatives, failure modes, prerequisite). The second sentence's 'on your own initiative / hasn't seen' clauses slightly overlap, adding modest redundancy to an otherwise tight definition.

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 destructive, output-schema-less mutation tool, the description covers provenance of the input, the approval gate, prerequisites, and refusal conditions. It stops short of saying what a successful confirmation returns or how partial failures surface, which an agent invoking a cap-table commit would benefit from knowing.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by naming all the upstream tools that can produce a valid proposal_uid and enforcing 'one proposal per call'. It does not add format or validation details beyond the schema.

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 Open action proposal to the cap table') and immediately enumerates the sibling tools whose output it consumes (create_holding, stop_vesting, exercise_options, etc.). An agent can distinguish this from discard_action or the individual proposal-creating tools without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (user has seen and approved the terms in their latest message), explicit when-not conditions ('Never call it on your own initiative', not for unseen proposals, not for multiple proposals on a single approval), and names the alternative path for changed terms (create a new proposal with replaces_proposal_uid).

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