increment_praproposal_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the two core behaviors (duplicating the active .odt version and recording to version_history.json) and identifies the file type. However, for a file-mutating tool it omits edge-case behavior: what happens if new_version already exists, whether current_version is validated, and overwrite semantics — gaps that are more significant given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the primary action is front-loaded and the concrete example earns its place by illustrating parameter values. Efficient and well-ordered, though the undocumented filename_prefix could arguably have been covered in the same space.

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?

For a file-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is moderately complete: core action and input formats are covered, but filename_prefix semantics, edge-case/conflict behavior, and differentiation from the near-identical increment_proposal_version sibling are all missing. Adequate core, clear gaps around the edges.

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. The example clarifies the format of current_version/new_version (v1.0, v1.1) and changelog content. However, the optional filename_prefix parameter is entirely unexplained — its purpose and default ('Praproposal Skripsi') effect are never mentioned. Compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb+resource: duplicating the active pra-proposal skripsi (.odt) to a new version and recording changes to version_history.json. The example (v1.0→v1.1) makes the action concrete. It distinguishes from the sibling increment_proposal_version only implicitly via the 'pra-proposal' resource name, not explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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 near-identical sibling increment_proposal_version exists, and the description never tells an agent when to choose praproposal over proposal — the distinction is left entirely to inference from the resource name. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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