propose_skill_improvement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavior: 'The skill file is NOT modified until the user calls approve_proposal().' It also mentions the return value (proposal ID). While it doesn't detail auth needs or rate limits, the non-destructive nature is communicated.

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 three concise sentences plus a list of args. It front-loads the purpose, then key behavioral info, then parameters. Every sentence is necessary and no words are wasted.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and an expected output schema (though not provided here), the description covers purpose, behavior, return info, and parameter meanings. It could be more complete by explaining what a skill file is or the format of proposed_content, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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. It explains each parameter: agent_slug with an example, proposed_content as the full replacement, and rationale with a length guideline. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 action: 'An agent proposes a change to its own skill file.' It distinguishes from siblings like approve_proposal by noting that the skill file is not modified until approval. The verb 'propose' combined with the object 'skill file' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to propose a change) and that the change is queued for human review, implying the alternative of using approve_proposal to effect the change. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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