propose_enrichment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses required environment/auth configuration, states that no S3 credentials are forwarded to DecisionPen, and clarifies the key side effect — nothing becomes Confirmed on the map until a human approves in the Inbox. It stops short of covering failure modes, duplicate-proposal behavior, or rate/allowlist rejection handling.

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?

The text is front-loaded with the action and destination, then moves to prerequisites, safety guarantees, and the approval semantics — each sentence carries distinct information. The trailing 'item_id:' gloss is somewhat orphaned and would read better integrated or omitted given the sparse coverage of the other two params.

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, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description covers the operational envelope an agent needs: env prerequisites, credential hygiene, and the human-approval gate. The remaining incompleteness is the two undocumented optional parameters, which matters for a tool whose purpose is provenance capture.

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 description coverage is 0% with three parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only annotates one — item_id as 'S3 object key under the allowlisted prefix.' The roles of source_label and anchor_application_id are left entirely undefined in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap for a propose call where provenance labeling matters.

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 gives a concrete verb chain — 'Download the object at the edge and push bytes + provenance to DecisionPen (Insights Inbox)' — which tells an agent exactly what the tool accomplishes and where the output lands. It is clearly a write/propose action, distinguishing it in spirit from read-style siblings like get_enrichment_job or get_document, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Prerequisites are stated (DP_MCP_MODE=propose|persist_approved, DP_API_TOKEN, DP_API_BASE), which implicitly bounds when the tool can be used, and the approval note hints at the intended workflow. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing or statement of when not to call it, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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