Update full proposal (deprecated)

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it barely delivers. The phrase 'complete revised documents' hints at full-replacement (overwrite) semantics, and the deprecated status is helpful, but nothing is said about side effects, expectedVersion conflict behavior, what happens to existing decision state, or whether the operation is destructive. A write tool of this shape needs far more transparency.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the most critical signal ('Compatibility', 'complete'). The deprecation directive is immediate and actionable. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity — 11 parameters, 3 required, 3 enums, a composite proposal type, and no output schema — this is under-specified for safe invocation. The deprecation redirect effectively steers agents to the sibling, which is the saving grace, but a complex tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage needs much more for an agent to use it correctly or to verify it's never needed.

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?

At 0% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate, and it only adds 'complete revised documents' as a hint that `proposal` is the full-document replacement. The cryptic enum values in `contextMode` ('dim_unrelated'), unusual `carryDecisions` semantics, and concurrency-related `expectedVersion` (already required) are all left entirely unexplained.

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 clearly identifies this as an update to a full proposal document (vs. patch-based), and the title adds 'deprecated'. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling `article_review_update_patchset` by naming it. Held back from 5 because 'Compatibility tool' is jargon-heavy and the core action isn't restated with a crisp verb+resource without inferring from the tool name.

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?

The directive 'Prefer article_review_update_patchset' explicitly names the alternative and communicates the deprecation stance in one shot. However, it never explains when (if ever) an agent SHOULD legitimately choose this compatibility path, leaving the actual supported scenario implicit.

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