coding_propose_changes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds useful routing/scope context about JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not explain what propose_changes actually does to the codebase or what side effects an agent should expect.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is clean and directly maps to the schema with no redundant fluff or filler.

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 an output schema and annotations that cover return values and destructive behavior, so the description does not need to explain those. However, it still lacks context about what propose_changes does semantically, how it differs from direct coding tools, and when an agent should invoke it. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, but the description compensates by defining both parameters: message as a "Free-text objective" and inputs as an "Optional JSON string of structured inputs." This gives an agent enough semantic understanding to populate them, though the internal structure of inputs is not detailed.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Run the coding domain agent action `propose_changes`." It also explains the routing mechanism. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling coding actions like coding_write_code or coding_process_ticket_with_branch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says to run the action and mentions routing, without stating use cases, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions relative to the many coding_* siblings.

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