Request Proposal Decision

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

The idempotency claim duplicates idempotentHint=true from the annotations and earns no credit, but the description does add the target state (needs_decision) and the escalation semantics. It says nothing about side effects, notifications, or what the proposal looks like afterward, so it is only moderately transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target state, with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 low-complexity (two params, no output schema) and annotations already carry the safety and idempotency profile, so the description's coverage of the state transition is arguably sufficient. It still leaves both parameters undocumented, which is a real gap for a mutation tool.

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% and both parameters are required with no schema-level documentation. The description never mentions proposal_id or reason, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; an agent gets no guidance on what a valid reason looks like or how the ID is scoped.

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 action (escalate) on a specific resource (proposal) and names the resulting state (needs_decision), which is more informative than the title. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling record_decision, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Unlinked/ambiguous proposal" implies the trigger condition, giving implied usage guidance. However, it never names the alternative tools (record_decision, resume_proposal) or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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