coding_propose_changes

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

The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT and scope, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, or what happens when a change is proposed (e.g., does it trigger a review?). Behavioral traits are largely opaque.

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 concise, with a clear one-line purpose, authentication context, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 lacks important context about the tool's output, expected behavior, and relationship to other tools. Given the existence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned. The complexity of the tool is moderate, but the description is too sparse.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is better than nothing but still vague, lacking examples or format details.

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 it runs the 'propose_changes' action in the coding domain, distinguishing it from other coding tools like coding_write_code or coding_explain_code. However, it does not elaborate on what 'propose_changes' actually does, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, which is critical given the large number of coding-related sibling tools.

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