improve_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes that the tool 'does not count against your monthly draft limit', which is helpful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, output format, or other side effects beyond that.

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 three sentences long, each providing distinct information: action and output, specific improvements, and usage guidance with a behavioral note. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral trait. It could mention the output format or idempotency, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that if 'focus' is omitted, a full review is given, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 verb 'Review' and the resource 'proposal draft', specifies what it surfaces (weak sections, unclear pricing, etc.), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'draft_proposal' by noting it is meant to be run after drafting.

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 explicitly says 'Run after draft_proposal or on any proposal you're about to send', giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond draft_proposal.

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