respond_to_proposal

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds key behaviors: auto-resolution when all participants have responded, and conditional parameter requirements (accept needs slot id, counter can suggest slots). No contradictions.

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 well-structured sentences that front-load the main action. No wasted words; each sentence adds distinct value.

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?

The description covers the main flow, auto-resolution, and requirements. With 6 parameters and no output schema, it is fairly complete, though it could mention expected response or error handling.

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%, providing baseline. The description adds meaning by explaining when selected_slot_id is required (for accept) and counter_slots is relevant (for counter), which goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 states the tool's action: submitting a response (accept/decline/counter) on behalf of a participant agent. It distinguishes from siblings like create_proposal and resolve_proposal by specifying this is for responding to an existing proposal, and mentions auto-resolution, which adds specificity.

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 description tells when to use (responding to an open proposal) and implicitly when not (e.g., for creating proposals, use create_proposal). It also provides context like requiring an org-level API key and Pro plan. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools.

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