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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only a vague hint that files are committed through 'the cell version', but it is truncated and does not explain the proposal lifecycle, approval effects, authorization requirements, or what happens after a proposal is created.

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 short but structurally incomplete, ending mid-thought with '...'. It uses undefined jargon ('ce repo', 'cell version') and is not front-loaded with the information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions or output schema, the description is far too sparse. It leaves critical details about the proposal process, parameter roles, and expected behavior unspecified.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only indirectly hints at 'repo' and 'files'. It says nothing about the required 'message' field or the optional 'base' parameter, leaving most of the four parameters undocumented.

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 gives a recognizable verb and resource ('Propose a code change to a ce repo'), but the scope is muddled by the undefined term 'ce repo' and a truncated trailing phrase. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like source_proposal, source_proposals, or source_publish.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not name source_proposal, source_proposals, source_publish, or any condition that would select this proposal path over another.

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