Accept or reject proposals

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the real consequence beyond them — accepted proposals become orders placed by the team and paid from the wallet, and a human confirmation is expected first. It does not disclose retry/partial-failure behavior or what the tool returns, which leaves some behavioral ground uncovered for a destructive write.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by downstream consequence and the sibling reference. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations and nothing 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 destructive, wallet-affecting write with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger condition, the downstream effect on orders and payment, the confirmation expectation, and the estimation sibling. The notable gap is what happens on success or on a mixed accept/reject set — but the critical decision inputs are present.

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 67% and the schema itself thoroughly documents requestId idempotency semantics, the reviews array shape, and the comment-required-to-reject rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema, not the description, carries parameter semantics here.

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 pair (accepts/rejects) on a specific resource (each proposal of a managed service campaign awaiting review), and frames the exact state the campaign must be in. An agent can distinguish it from growwer_list_managed_service_proposals, growwer_get_managed_service_proposals_summary, and growwer_estimate_managed_service_proposals without opening any 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?

"Use this when the user has decided on every proposal ... that awaits their review" gives an explicit precondition, and the description names the cost-side alternative (growwer_estimate_managed_service_proposals) plus the required user confirmation step. The one alternative an agent might need, viewing/listing proposals, is implicitly excluded by the 'all decisions ready' precondition.

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