propose_modify_buffer

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 usefully discloses that this defers the change (proposal, not immediate mutation) and requires resolve_proposal to take effect. It omits what happens on rejection, whether the change is validated against the record's existence, and any error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical workflow constraint. No filler.

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 proposal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the required follow-up step. It is nearly complete; only error/validation behavior and what the proposal yields are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented including the SpmcRing/capacity conditional. The description only restates the buffer/capacity pairing without adding format or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: proposing a change to a record's buffer type (and optionally capacity). It is distinguishable from propose_modify_fields and propose_modify_key_variants by its buffer-specific scope, though it never names those siblings 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?

Gives clear operational context — 'Present the proposal to the user before calling resolve_proposal' establishes the two-step propose/approve workflow. It does not, however, state when to choose this over the other propose_modify_* siblings.

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