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

The description adds useful context that the plan does not change until approval and that repeated request_id values with identical operations create one proposal. However, this idempotency claim contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=false, which says repeated calls are not idempotent.

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 three tight sentences with the core purpose and approval constraint front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 complex mutation tool with a large oneOf operations array, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It omits explanation of operation kinds, constraints, and response behavior, covering only approval semantics and request_id deduplication.

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 0%, so the description must explain the three required parameters. It only explains request_id deduplication and gives no guidance on reason or the complex operations array, which contains many operation variants and constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it creates a proposal of plan changes. It also clarifies the approval gate, which distinguishes this tool from applying changes immediately.

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 the tool is used when changes should be reviewed by the user before affecting the plan. However, it does not explicitly compare this with siblings like zarok_apply_changes or explain when not to use it.

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