tf_propose_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the composite nature and output recommendation, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it modifies state, requires special permissions, or has side effects. It also ignores potential failure states or rate limits. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and output, the second gives actionable usage. Every word earns its place.

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 composite tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage. It names the recommendation values and the intent. However, it lacks details on what a Proposal contains, error conditions, or whether state changes occur—gaps that matter for an agent deciding to call it safely.

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?

The description makes no mention of the workspaceId parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose or format. The agent gets no guidance beyond the schema pattern, which is minimal.

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 runs plan, policy check, and cost estimate together and returns a bundled Proposal with a recommendation. It names specific sub-operations and differentiates from sibling tools like tf_plan, tf_policy_check, tf_cost_estimate by framing as a composite. The verb 'runs' and resource 'Proposal' are explicit.

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?

It provides explicit timing: 'Call this before tf_request_approval.' This gives a clear context and implies when to use it instead of individual tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the approval flow, leaving some inference.

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