rws_amendment_propose

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

With annotations already declaring write/non-destructive/idempotent, the description still adds real behavioral facts: the operation is audited, it creates a proposal rather than mutating the record, and it does not rewrite the source. It leaves a notable gap around expectedRevision conflict behavior and what requestId deduplication does, which matters for a write 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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core capability comes first and the non-effects second. It is efficient, though for a nested four-parameter write tool it is arguably too terse to be 'appropriately sized'.

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?

The tool has a nested object schema, zero parameter descriptions, no output schema, and optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision, yet the description covers none of the mechanics an agent needs (what patch accepts, what a revision mismatch means, what identifier the proposal returns for later apply/dismiss).

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 description coverage is 0% and all four top-level params plus five nested required fields are undocumented. The description only obliquely gestures at 'exact record' (targetRef) and 'audited' (evidenceRefs); requestId, expectedRevision, patch, reason, and the targetRef type enum are entirely unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Propose') plus the resource ('an audited metadata/source/lineage/recovery correction for an exact record'), which is far more informative than a bare name restatement. The propose/apply/dismiss sibling naming plus 'does not ... approve the correction' gives reasonable differentiation, though the description never names rws_amendment_apply as the approving step.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'Does not ... approve the correction' hints at a two-phase workflow, but it never says when to call this versus rws_amendment_apply or rws_amendment_dismiss. No prerequisites (e.g. evidence must be attached, revision must match) are stated.

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