propose_add_binary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: this creates a proposal that must be shown to the user and is only committed via resolve_proposal. It stops short of describing what the call returns (no output schema, so a proposal handle/id is unexplained) or what happens on validation failure or duplicate names.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose, entity definition, and workflow constraint, in that order. The action is front-loaded and every sentence contributes information.

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?

Covers the purpose and the two-phase proposal flow, which is the essential context. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return value and the mechanics of the user-facing presentation unexplained, which matters for correctly chaining into resolve_proposal.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's mention that binaries 'group tasks' and 'optionally declare external broker connections' loosely maps to the tasks and external_connectors parameters and clarifies the latter's optionality, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Propose adding a new binary definition') and then defines the domain entity: binaries are deployable crates that group tasks and may declare external broker connections. That definition cleanly separates it from siblings like propose_add_task or propose_add_connector, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow obligation: present the proposal to the user before calling resolve_proposal, naming the follow-up tool. It does not, however, state when this tool should be chosen over the other propose_* siblings or what preconditions exist, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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