create_change_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the key non-destructive behavior ('does not modify the canonical trip') and mentions 'auditable,' implying recording. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites like a valid trip, or any return value, leaving notable gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler; the core purpose and behavioral caveat are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of 7 parameters and a nested operations schema, the description is too sparse. It omits how to construct operations, what model/reason/summary mean, and what the tool returns. With no output schema or annotations, this leaves critical gaps for correct usage.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. It gives no guidance for constructing the operations array or the meaning of fields like model, actor_id, reason, or summary, leaving the agent without essential information to call the tool correctly.

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 and resource: 'Create an auditable draft proposal against the current trip version.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like apply_change_proposal by noting that it 'does not modify the canonical trip.' This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 clear context by indicating this creates a draft proposal and explicitly states it does not modify the canonical trip, which implies when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like apply_change_proposal or validate_change_proposal, so it falls short of a 5.

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