mind_propose_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it creates a file, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the file is overwritten, required permissions, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extra words. However, for a tool with four parameters, it is under-specified and should at least hint at parameter meanings. It earns its place but is not optimally 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values or side effects, but it does not. The tool is moderately complex (four parameters), yet the description provides no context on what the tool returns, prerequisites, or postconditions. It is completely inadequate.

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. It provides vague context for 'target' (target file) and 'proposal' (proposing a change), but entirely fails to explain 'reason' and 'confidence' parameters. Thus, it adds only partial meaning beyond the schema.

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 creates a .mind/diff/*.md file proposing a change to a target file. It identifies the verb 'create' and the resource. The sibling tools (mind_list, mind_read, mind_recall, mind_route) appear to be read/listing operations, so this tool is distinct in function, but the description does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context of proposing a change is implied but not elaborated.

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