propose_add_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this tool only proposes and that resolve_proposal is the follow-up, which tells the agent the call is non-committal. It does not say whether validation occurs, whether the payload is rejected on bad input, or what state the proposal is left in.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the input reassurance and the required follow-up step. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 10-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential process contract. The one gap is that it never explains how the resulting proposal is identified or handed to resolve_proposal, which an agent needs to chain the two calls.

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%, including enum explanations for buffer and nested field/connector objects, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's claim that 'all payload fields are explicit and typed' adds reassurance but no syntax or conditional detail (e.g., capacity only for SpmcRing) beyond what the schema already states.

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: proposing (not applying) a new record to the architecture. This distinguishes it from the other propose_* siblings (connector, task, binary) and from mutating tools like set_record, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 gives one concrete workflow instruction — 'Present the proposal to the user before calling resolve_proposal' — which implies this is the first step of a two-phase flow. It does not say when to choose propose_add_record over set_record, rename_record, or resolve_proposal, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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