propose_company_blueprint_certification

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the submit action, which is consistent with the annotations. No contradiction but no extra disclosure.

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?

One concise sentence with clear subject-verb-object structure, no redundant information, and no unnecessary details.

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 lacks details on required parameters, expected output, or workflow position among sibling certification tools. Even though an output schema may exist per context signals, the minimal description leaves an agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Only the 'candidate' parameter has a description in the schema; 'company_ref', 'project_ref', 'idempotency_key', and 'evidence_target_id' are unexplained. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters, leaving 80% of parameters opaque.

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 the specific action 'Submit' and the object 'SDK-sealed Blueprint JSON' for certification review, clearly identifying the resource type and purpose. This distinguishes it from deployment-related siblings by explicitly mentioning 'certification'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prepare or finalize certification steps. No prerequisites, conditions, or workflow context are mentioned.

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