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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false; the description adds the substantive context: no cap-table mutation, permanent unconfirmability, who is permitted to act, and a gating state prerequisite. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and cannot get from the annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then alternatives, permissions and prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information 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 one-parameter, non-destructive action with no output schema, the description covers effect, irreversibility, alternative path, authorization and prerequisite gating. There is nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly that is missing.

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% and the only parameter is already documented as 'UID of the Open proposal to discard. One proposal per call.' The description restates the single-proposal-per-call limit but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Discards one Open action proposal') with scope ('one', 'Open') and the resulting state ('so it can never be confirmed'). This distinguishes it cleanly from confirm_action and from re-calling the original proposal tool.

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 says when not to use it and what to do instead ('To correct a proposal, don't discard it: call its tool again with replaces_proposal_uid'), plus the authorization set (requester, Admin, Manager) and the prerequisite ('Requires unlock_shareflo to have been called first'). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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