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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool mutates a pending proposal, that withdrawal is possible, and that messages cannot be changed after human editing, but it omits permissions, concurrency behavior, whether withdrawal deletes state, and what the response looks like.

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 two short sentences with the main action and key constraint front-loaded. There is no unnecessary wording, and the brevity is appropriate for the amount of information provided.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with five parameters, nested message objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description is far too brief for that complexity because it does not explain revision/contentHash concurrency requirements, edit semantics, withdrawal effects, or error conditions.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the parameter semantics. It only loosely implies that 'id' identifies the key and that 'message' relates to the edited proposal; it does not explain the critical roles of 'revision' and 'contentHash' for optimistic concurrency or clarify the 'action' choice.

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 uses specific verbs, 'Edit or withdraw,' and a specific resource, 'pending proposal,' scoped to 'this key.' It also distinguishes the tool from approval by stating that it cannot approve a proposal, though it does not name sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by 'pending proposal' and 'after human editing,' which tells the agent when the action is available and when it is not. However, it gives no explicit guidance on choosing among propose_email, get_proposal, or send_email, nor does it explain when to choose edit versus withdraw.

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