propagate_edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that all transitively affected sections are updated, which is a key behavior, but it omits side effects (e.g., whether it modifies multiple files, handles conflicts, or if the operation is reversible). There is no mention of failure modes, prerequisites, or what the response indicates.

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 that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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?

This tool appears to be complex (dependency graph propagation) and has no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description does not explain what an 'entity' is, how the dependency graph is constructed, what 'transitively affected sections' means operationally, or what the return value indicates. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and edge cases.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (file_path, section_selector, old_value, new_value), achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action (propagate), the resource (entity edit), and the scope (through the dependency graph, updating all transitively affected sections). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_html or edit_section, which directly edit HTML. However, 'entity edit' is somewhat abstract, so it doesn't fully nail down exactly what kind of edits are in scope.

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 the tool: whenever an entity edit needs to propagate through a dependency graph. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools should be used instead for direct or localized edits. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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