propose_registry_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not edit canonical files, which is a meaningful non-destructive guarantee. However, it does not clarify whether the tool reads existing state, produces a persistent proposal, or has other side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key constraint ('without editing canonical files') is placed up front where an agent will notice it.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool has only one parameter, the description is too sparse for a no-annotation tool. It lacks usage guidance and parameter structure details, leaving an agent to guess how to structure the 'research' evidence and what planning behavior entails.

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% and the only parameter 'research' is an open-ended object with additionalProperties allowed. The phrase 'supplied evidence' loosely maps to this parameter but adds no structural detail about expected fields, format, or nesting, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of guidance.

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 ('Plan'), a resource ('registry update'), and a source ('supplied evidence'), with a clear non-editing constraint. It distinguishes the tool as a planning-only action, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to differentiate from.

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 this tool is for proposing changes rather than executing them, via 'without editing canonical files.' However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like build_session_registry or generate_session_migration_plan, and mentions no alternatives.

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