Drop Suggestion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the side effect (writes a timestamped markdown file), the target location, the audience (ADMIN), the non-destructive relationship to rule files, and the pre-initialization behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then gives the concrete file behavior, then the governance rule, then the edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple, the schema covers both parameters fully, and an output schema is present. The description supplies the operational context an agent needs to call the tool correctly: what file gets created, where, when it is appropriate, and how it behaves before project initialization.

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 100%, so `content` and `context` are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline expectation for fully covered schemas.

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 and resource: it writes a timestamped markdown file under `.fcop/proposals/` as a proposal for ADMIN review. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by declaring it the ONLY sanctioned way for an agent to push back on rule files, which separates it from tools like write_issue or write_report.

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 explicit when-to-use context: an agent disagrees with the current FCoP protocol or wants to push back on `fcop-rules.mdc`/`fcop-protocol.mdc`. It also gives when-not-to-use guidance by forbidding direct edits to rule files, and notes that it works before `init_project`/`init_solo`, covering prerequisite edge cases.

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