Propose Registry Update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: it does not edit canonical files. Yet it does not explain what the tool does with the plan, whether it persists anything, or if it has other side effects, so transparency is partial.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb 'Plan' and the critical constraint 'without editing canonical files'. There is no redundant wording or filler; every word earns its place.

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?

The definition is too thin for a tool that accepts a complex nested parameter and sits among many similarly named migration-planning siblings. It lacks parameter details, usage context, and relationships to alternatives, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 object with no documentation. The description's phrase 'supplied evidence' hints at what the parameter should contain, but it does not specify structure, required subfields, or expected format, leaving agents to guess how to populate it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Plan' with a clear resource 'registry update' and adds a crucial boundary 'without editing canonical files' that distinguishes it from mutation tools. While it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, the non-editing qualifier sharply narrows its role.

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?

'from supplied evidence' implies the tool should be used when evidence is available and a planning step is needed, providing some contextual guidance. However, it does not mention any alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool, leaving the choice among the many sibling tools ambiguous.

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