decision_propose

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / openWorldHint=false. The description goes well beyond: it discloses that the write is non-final (unsigned draft), that a human seal is required downstream, idempotency semantics (records with a nestor_pair_id return 'already_linked' rather than re-proposing), and two specific error shapes (record_not_found, nestor_unavailable).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the not-seal distinction, then defaults, then idempotency/errors. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the heavy parentheticals (projects_willow_governance_decisions, seal_handler.on_seal) add length for an agent that cannot act on those internals.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return contract itself: {pair_id, record_id, status:'draft'} on success, plus the alternate status and error shapes. For a 6-param write tool with no annotations covering mutation semantics, nothing material is missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: it documents that question/conclusion/rationale/origin default from the record's title/ruling/rationale and a willow-seat-scoped origin, and that explicit arguments override defaults. app_id and record_id are not elaborated beyond their names, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('propose a recorded governance decision ... as a DRAFT in the vault's Nestor database') and immediately names the counter-verb it is not ('propose is not seal'). An agent can distinguish it from nestor_tool_seal without opening either 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?

Explicitly scopes the tool: propose only lands an unsigned draft, and the ratifying seal (requiring a human signing key) is 'deliberately out of this tool's reach.' This is an explicit when-to-use plus an explicit when-not, with the alternative behavior named.

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