proposal_steps

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully clarifies that despite the status transition to awaiting_owner, 'FBM makes no move' and no external action occurs. It also discloses the status model (awaiting_owner vs done). It does not address idempotency or what happens on re-validation failure, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, densely front-loaded with the precondition first and the behavioral clarification second. Every sentence carries information, though the status parentheticals make it slightly technical to parse.

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 no output schema, the description correctly describes the return value (the exact steps the owner performs) and states the preconditions and status transitions. The only missing piece an agent needs is the meaning/format of 'ref', which is not covered anywhere else.

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?

There is one parameter, 'ref', at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what it is (a proposal identifier), what format it takes, or where to obtain it. The text implies a proposal is selected but adds no meaning beyond what the bare schema property name conveys, which is a real gap for the only input.

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 verb+resource: re-validate an owner-approved, unexpired proposal against the current league and return the exact Yahoo steps the owner performs. It also distinguishes behavior by proposal type (strategy proposals are recorded directly, status done), which helps separate it from get_proposal/list_proposals. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating to the top tier.

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?

Usage context is clear and conditional: this applies only to owner-APPROVED, unexpired proposals, and strategy proposals are handled differently (recorded directly rather than producing steps). That functions as both a precondition and an implicit exclusion, though no alternative tool is named for the other cases.

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