create_proposal

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

Annotations only include 'openWorldHint: true', which the description does not explain or expand upon. The description adds no behavioral context, such as side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is idempotent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices helpfulness for brevity. It lacks structure and does not earn its place since it adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral context, the description is completely inadequate. It does not cover expected input, output, or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 description does not explain any of the 8 parameters, and the schema has 0% description coverage, leaving parameter semantics entirely to inference from names like 'contact_id', which is insufficient for complex types like 'custom_fields'.

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 'Create a new proposal' is a verb+resource pair and clearly states the tool's basic function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_contact' or 'search_proposals', lacking specificity about what a proposal is in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a proposal vs. search for existing ones. There is no context about prerequisites or common workflows.

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