Consolidate raw evidence

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Proposals are never auto-approved' and the dependency on server synthesis configuration. This goes beyond annotation disclosure without contradicting it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and avoids unnecessary detail. It is concise and structured, though it sacrifices some explanatory depth for brevity.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the expected return structure, or the conditions under which staging occurs. Significant gaps remain.

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 only 29% (only apply and cursor have descriptions). The tool description fails to explain any of the parameters (days, tags, namespace, maxProposals, evidenceLimit), leaving the agent without meaning beyond the schema. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific action: preparing a bounded unsynthesized evidence batch and optionally previewing/staging proposals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_conclusion and approve_conclusion by emphasizing staging and no auto-approval. However, terms like 'unsynthesized' are somewhat jargon-heavy but still convey a clear purpose.

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 a conditional context ('when server synthesis is configured') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like create_conclusion or list_pending_conclusions. It implies staging use but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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