propose_issue_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the operation requires human consent and is constrained from setting owner, due date, or status. It leaves gaps around whether the note is persisted/pending, reversibility, and permissions, but the consent gating and field restrictions are meaningful beyond the tool name.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core behavior plus the consent constraint are front-loaded. Every clause 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, so return values need not be described. For a consent-gated proposal tool with no annotations, the description covers the key conditional behavior and field restrictions; only post-consent semantics and the note parameter remain unaddressed.

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?

The single 'note' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all — no format, length, or markdown expectations. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Propose an issue note'), which is clearly distinguishable from the read-only siblings (read_issue, read_digest, read_ledger, read_audit_log) and from draft_update, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with draft_update. Purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 an explicit precondition for use: 'Applies only after a human consents.' That tells the agent the gating condition for invoking it. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., draft_update) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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