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

The annotation only provides destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is a user-driven secondary action and that the result goes to the Inbox, which suggests a proposal workflow. But it doesn't disclose whether it creates a formal record, requires permissions, or how the proposal is processed further. With minimal annotation coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the important usage context ('SECONDARY') and states the purpose and outcome efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 simple propose tool, the description provides the core purpose and inbox destination. However, with no output schema and four parameters (one undocumented), plus numerous sibling propose tools, more context on when to use this vs. alternatives would improve completeness. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema already describes 'from' and 'to' with clear descriptions, and label is described as optional. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond schema, and project_id remains undocumented in both. Since schema coverage is 75%, the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable but not additive.

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?

The description clearly states the action (propose), the resource (a link between two existing screens), and the outcome (→ Inbox). It distinguishes from sibling tools like propose_screen or propose_system by specifying 'existing screens', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'SECONDARY (user-driven UI)' prefix indicates this is a user-initiated action, and 'existing screens' implies it is not for creating new screens or systems. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it misses full guidance.

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