propose_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: nothing is sent and a human approves. It says nothing about whether the account must exist, what a proposal returns (an id? a pending record?), idempotency, or failure modes.

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 clauses, no filler, with the human-approval caveat front-loaded where it matters most for agent behavior. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three fully undocumented required parameters, the description leaves too much open — notably what a 'proposal' produces and how it relates to list_pending_actions. Only the safety framing is complete.

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% with three required free-form string params. The description only illuminates 'kind' via examples; 'account' (what identifier format?) and 'body' (what content/structure?) remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (propose) and resource (an action), and the examples of 'kind' values ('email_draft', 'crm_note', 'task') make the scope concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_pending_actions, though the approval framing implies where proposals end up.

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?

'Nothing is sent; a human approves' implies this is the pre-approval staging step rather than a direct send, which is useful context. However, no alternative tool is named and no conditions for choosing this over outcome_report or another sibling are given.

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