propose_patch

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

The description discloses that the tool does not modify files and that the proposal is short-lived. However, with no annotations, it lacks additional behavioral context such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond registration.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word serves a purpose. No redundancy.

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 presence of required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details and fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool effectively.

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 50%, but the description adds no explanation of parameters (root and changes) beyond what is in the schema. The description does not clarify what constitutes a valid root path or the expected format of changes items, leaving ambiguity.

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 generates a unified diff without modifying files and registers a short-lived patch proposal. It also specifies the output can be used by apply_approved_patch, providing a complete purpose and differentiating from sibling tools like git_diff.

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 by mentioning the return value is for apply_approved_patch, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like git_diff or pre_commit_safety_scan. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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