propose_observation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'does NOT write' and 'stages for human approval', which are critical behavioral traits. It omits details like reversibility or error conditions, but the most important side-effect disclosure is present.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information. It is concise without losing clarity.

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?

Despite having 7 required parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description provides no parameter context or workflow guidance. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description still leaves major gaps in how to construct a valid proposal and what happens after staging.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 7 required parameters. It does not mention any parameter, leaving the agent to infer meanings from names alone. No format, code system, or relationship guidance is provided.

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 identifies the action ('Propose a new observation') and the resource. The added clause 'Stages it for human approval; does NOT write' distinguishes it from direct write tools like approve_write and from read-only list_observations.

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 a staging workflow that precedes approval, signaling when to use this tool versus approve_write. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended workflow.

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