cache_propose_threshold_adjust

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

Description reveals key behaviors: creates a pending proposal, requires human approval, and reasoning length constraint. However, it omits details like whether proposals are unique per cache, what happens if a proposal already exists, or any authentication/permission requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and could be more thorough.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose, second adds process constraint. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description provides basic context about the proposal workflow. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., proposal ID) and how to use it in conjunction with other proposal tools. Could be more complete.

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?

Input schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description only reiterates the reasoning length constraint, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema offers. 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?

Description clearly states the action (propose), the resource (semantic-cache similarity-threshold), and the workflow context (pending proposal, requires human approval). Distinguishes from siblings like cache_propose_invalidate or cache_edit_and_approve_proposal.

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?

Description implies the tool is for proposing changes that need review, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., direct edit or invalidate proposal). No guidance on when not to use it.

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