respond_to_proposal

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc. Description adds important behavioral context: requires org-level API key, Pro plan only, and auto-resolution when all participants respond. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 main action. No wasted words; each sentence adds essential information.

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?

Describes return behavior (auto-resolution), auth requirements, and plan restrictions. Lacks details on error responses, but given complexity and no output schema, it is adequately complete.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. Description adds value by explaining the conditional relationship: 'accept requires slot id, counter suggests alternative slots.' This clarifies usage beyond schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit a response'), the resource ('proposal'), and the specific response types (accept/decline/counter). It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_proposal by noting auto-resolution behavior.

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?

Description explains when to use the tool (to respond on behalf of a participant) and mentions auto-resolution, implying no need for a separate resolve call. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but provides sufficient context.

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