cache_propose_tool_ttl_adjust

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals that the tool creates a pending proposal requiring human approval and enforces a 20-character reasoning minimum. However, it omits details on the proposal lifecycle, side effects, or error cases, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentences convey purpose and a key constraint. No fluff; 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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters, the description is somewhat incomplete. It lacks explanation of return values (e.g., proposal ID), how to track or approve the proposal, and the role of instanceId. More context would improve usability.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no new parameter info beyond restating the reasoning length constraint already in the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: proposing a per-tool TTL change for review, creating a pending proposal requiring human approval. It distinguishes itself from sibling propose tools (invalidate, threshold_adjust) by specifying 'TTL change'.

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 implies usage for proposing TTL adjustments, but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The context of sibling tools suggests differentiation by proposal type, but no direct guidance on when to choose this over others.

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