cache_propose_tool_ttl_adjust

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a pending proposal and that reasoning must meet a length constraint. This is transparent about the primary behavior and a key requirement, though it omits details like whether any side effects occur or auth needed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and a critical requirement without any redundant information. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspect: it creates a pending proposal needing approval. It might benefit from mentioning that the proposal is stored and can be later approved/rejected, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the reasoning minLength constraint but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify parameter semantics further.

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 verb 'propose' and the resource 'agent-cache per-tool TTL change', and explicitly mentions that it creates a pending proposal requiring approval. This distinguishes it from siblings like cache_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?

The description provides context by stating it creates a pending proposal for review and requires human approval, implying when to use it (for proposing changes). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with sibling proposal tools.

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