create_proposal

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly and non-idempotent, so the write nature is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the owner-approval constraint ('FBM never makes the move'), the requirement that rationale cite tool outputs, and that evidence_json carries the key numbers. It still omits what happens after drafting (notification, expiry 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?

Front-loaded with the action and key constraint, then moves into compact per-kind examples. Dense but efficient, with each clause carrying payload or policy information. Slightly terse in ways that leak into the parameter gaps above.

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?

For a 7-parameter, 0%-coverage mutation tool with no output schema, the description should fully explain the input contract. It covers the payload-bearing parameters well but leaves three parameters (title, summary, expires_in_hours) and two kind variants unexplained, so an agent must guess at them.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full semantic burden and does document kind, payload_json shape per kind, rationale, and evidence_json. However, it says nothing about title, summary, or expires_in_hours, and payload examples cover only add_drop, trade, and strategy, leaving waiver_claim and other undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Draft a proposal') and adds a critical scope constraint ('FBM never makes the move') that separates it from execution siblings like send_email or evaluate_trade. An agent can tell it is a proposal-creation tool, not an action tool, without inspecting the schema.

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 'kind' values imply when each proposal type applies, and 'FBM never makes the move' clarifies intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing against siblings like proposal_steps, list_proposals, get_proposal, or record_owner_decision. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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