cache_edit_and_approve_proposal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that only one edit field must be provided matching the proposal type and excludes invalidate proposals. However, it does not describe failure modes, prerequisites (proposal must be pending), or atomicity of the combined operation.

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?

Three concise sentences with no superfluous content. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives parameter guidance, and the third adds an exclusion. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could explain return values or success indicators. However, it adequately covers the core use case and constraints. For a tool combining edit and approve, it provides sufficient detail for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds critical context: the exact field to use per proposal type (new_threshold for threshold_adjust, new_ttl_seconds for tool_ttl_adjust) and that exactly one edit field is required. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 states the tool edits and approves a proposal in one step. It specifies the action (edit and approve) and the resource (existing pending proposal). It distinguishes from sibling tools by combining two operations and providing field mapping per proposal type.

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 explains when to use this tool (for editing and approving in one step) and includes an explicit exclusion ('Invalidate proposals are not editable'). It implies the alternative of using separate approve or propose tools, though it does not name them directly.

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