propose_requalification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses read-only semantics, the required TRUST_GATE_* environment settings, that tenant comes from config not arguments, and detailed failure behavior (missing setting/off surface/error all yield UNAVAILABLE, never fabricated data). It also warns about API version prerequisites and that a mapping is not a compliance finding.

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-loaded with purpose, then constraints and failure modes. Slight redundancy between 'never runs a retest' and 'writes, signs and executes nothing', but every sentence largely 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?

An output schema exists covering the status values, and the description reinforces it. Behavioral coverage is strong for a complex tool; the notable gap is the shape of the nested request payload, which the description does not compensate for.

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?

There is a single opaque 'request' object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema coverage. The description only hints that it carries 'the graph you supply' and 'records you supply' without describing the object's structure, so the nested payload remains largely undocumented.

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 states the resource (a requalification proposal for a change) and scope (impact analysis over the supplied graph, no retest executed). It reads partly as a restatement of the name, but the negative scoping ('never runs a retest', 'writes, signs and executes nothing') genuinely clarifies what the tool is.

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 through the read-only framing and the 'returns UNAVAILABLE until the API serves this view' caveat, but there is no explicit routing versus siblings like compare_qualification_change or gate_decision. An agent must infer when to pick this over the comparison tool.

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