cache_propose_tool_ttl_adjust

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

No annotations provided. Description only notes that it creates a pending proposal requiring approval and a minimum reasoning length. Lacks details on side effects, response structure, or potential errors.

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 wasted words, key information 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?

Adequately distinguishes from siblings but lacks return value information (e.g., proposal ID) and does not hint at response format, despite no output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description only repeats the reasoning length constraint already in the schema, adding no extra meaning.

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 action ('Propose an agent-cache per-tool TTL change') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cache_approve_proposal and cache_propose_invalidate.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use (to propose a TTL change) and mentions human approval, but does not explicitly state when not to use or reference alternatives.

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