planist_propose_page_edit

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

Discloses a key behavioral trait: the submission is a proposal that goes through human review and atomic write-back, which adds value beyond the tool name. Yet without annotations, it omits details about return values, whether the submission is asynchronous, failure modes, or follow-up actions.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. No filler or repetition; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 description gives the essential purpose and process, but with no annotations or output schema, it lacks detail on the proposal submission lifecycle, expected response, error handling, and post-submission steps. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for safe invocation.

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 clear descriptions for pageId, summary, and markdownContent. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Submit a page edit proposal' with a specific resource and process ('for human review and atomic transaction write-back'). It distinguishes from direct edit/update tools by emphasizing the proposal nature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like planist_update_variable.

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?

Implies usage context through 'for human review and atomic transaction write-back', indicating this tool is for proposing edits that require review. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other tools (e.g., direct updates) or exclusions.

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