cache_edit_and_approve_proposal

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses the combined edit-approve action and mutual exclusivity of edit fields. Lacks information about side effects, authorization needs, or irreversibility.

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?

Concise, three sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with key purpose and then specific guidance.

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?

Mostly complete for a simple tool; covers edit fields and exclusion of invalidate proposals. Could mention return value or behavior on non-existent/non-pending proposals.

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?

100% schema coverage with descriptions; description adds value by mapping new_threshold to threshold_adjust and new_ttl_seconds to tool_ttl_adjust, and emphasizing mutual exclusivity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool edits and approves a pending proposal in one step, and distinguishes from sibling tools like cache_approve_proposal by combining both actions.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on which edit field to use for each proposal type, and states invalidate proposals are not editable. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with cache_approve_proposal for cases where no edit is needed.

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