createProposal

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

Without annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the proposal starts as 'pending', each participant must respond via respondToProposal, and once all accept it becomes 'accepted' leading to createBooking. It mentions default expiration (48 hours) but does not specify behavior on rejections or partial responses, keeping it slightly short of a perfect score.

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 relatively concise but front-loads the purpose. It consists of 5 sentences, each contributing to clarity. It could potentially be shortened slightly without losing information, but it remains efficient.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: the tool's role in the workflow, prerequisites, lifecycle, and chaining with sibling tools. It covers all critical aspects for correct agent usage, missing only minor edge cases like rejection handling.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the description needs to add minimal value beyond schema. It does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'send candidate meeting times to a group and collect their votes before confirming a booking'. The verb 'create' combined with the resource 'Proposal' is specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like findMutualAvailability and createBooking.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use this tool when you want to...'), provides prerequisites (all participants must be registered, organizerParticipantId must be in participantIds), and gives a typical usage sequence (createParticipant → findMutualAvailability → createProposal). It also indicates subsequent steps (respondToProposal, then createBooking).

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