create_proposal

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

Beyond annotations, description details auto-resolution to highest-scoring slot, cancellation if all decline, and organizer ownership. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with key info, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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?

Covers flow, constraints (Pro plan, API key), and resolution behavior. No output schema, so response format not expected, but description is thorough for the tool's complexity.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds context by explaining 'candidate time slots' and linking 'weight' to scoring in auto-resolution, enhancing schema descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states it creates a scheduling proposal by sending candidate time slots to participants, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_event (direct event creation) and respond_to_proposal (response).

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?

Provides clear context: multi-participant scheduling with auto-resolution, plus explicit requirements (org-level API key, Pro plan). Missing explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives like find_meeting_time.

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