Update Proposal

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that only pending proposals can be updated and that the operation must happen before the client responds. It also notes the return is a confirmation.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections and a useful note about pending proposals. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is compact and does not significantly bloat the description.

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?

For a relatively simple update tool, the description covers the key behavioral constraint (pending only), the fields that can be updated, and the return type. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though a bit more detail on error cases would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's Args section repeats this information without adding meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 updates an existing proposal and specifies the modifiable fields (cover letter, bid amount, estimated duration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_proposal, withdraw_proposal, and get_proposal.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: only for proposals still pending and before the client responds. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the timing and pending-state constraint effectively guide selection.

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