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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses an eligibility constraint (agent must be the author) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what state change occurs beyond 'opening to deliberation'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key action and the agent-author constraint are stated in the fewest necessary words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key constraint, which is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations, it would benefit from stating the resulting state or any side effects to be fully 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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description only loosely connects proposal_id to 'brouillon' and does not add format or meaning beyond the schema's 'Proposition'.

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 names a specific action (opening a draft for deliberation) and a specific object (a draft authored by the agent), which distinguishes it from create_proposal and the listing/viewing tools. It stops short of explicitly saying the draft becomes a submitted proposal, but the meaning is still inferable.

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 implies when to use it: when the agent has authored a draft and wants to open it to deliberation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the author-of-the-draft condition gives some routing guidance.

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