Update a proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important behavior: only passed fields change, omitted fields come from stored creation data, and the tool returns changed fields and the file path. It does not cover error cases or irreversibility, but the core mutation semantics are 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose, update behavior, and return value are all stated clearly and front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the key operational details: how to identify the proposal, the merge behavior, where default values come from, and what is returned. Edge cases like missing references or exact response formatting are absent, but the description gives enough for correct invocation.

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 only 11%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds the crucial partial-update semantic and clarifies that only reference is required. However, it does not explain formats or meanings for most parameters, such as valid_until, timeline duration, or price amounts, beyond what the schema types already indicate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb, 'Rewrite,' and identifies the exact resource: an existing proposal identified by reference. It clearly distinguishes itself from creation tools like proposal_create by emphasizing 'existing' and 'in place.'

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 description makes clear this is for modifying an existing proposal rather than creating a new one. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a when-not-to-use rule, but the 'existing proposal' and 'in place' wording provides enough context.

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