convert_to_atomic_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares write access, states it never writes .md files directly, and explains it stages for human review via approve_proposal. It omits idempotency and permission specifics, but the key unsafe-operation behavior is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constrained to a few tight sentences. The 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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 three-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral traits (staging, no direct write, access level) and an output schema covers return values. Minor gaps in permission and error behavior remain.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'best-effort scope inference' essentially restates the default_scope_id fallback already described in the schema, adding little beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb (convert) and resource (legacy markdown file) with a clear output form (atomic-format pending_proposals, one per legacy block). It is distinguishable from siblings like index_rules_from_markdown and create_pending_proposal because it describes batch conversion of a legacy file into staged proposals.

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?

Usage is implied: this is for legacy (###-style) markdown and always stages rather than writing. However, it never names when to prefer this over index_rules_from_markdown, extract_rules_from_transcript, or create_pending_proposal, so the agent must infer selection from context alone.

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