propose_modify_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a critical behavioral trait: this replaces ALL fields, so unchanged fields must be re-included. It also reveals the two-phase propose-then-resolve flow, though it omits permission, reversibility, and failure 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?

Three tight sentences, fully front-loaded: the core action first, then the critical replace-all caveat, then the workflow step. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-output-schema proposal tool with a rich input schema, the description covers the action, the replace-all semantics, and the resolve step. It could clarify that nothing is applied until resolve_proposal succeeds, but it is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'fields' is a complete replacement list requiring unchanged fields to be included.

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 replacement of the value struct fields of an existing record, which clearly separates it from propose_add_record and propose_modify_buffer. It names the resolve_proposal follow-up, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the other propose_modify_* siblings.

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 (modify existing records' fields) and a workflow hint is given (present to user before resolve_proposal), but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or exclusion criteria against the other propose_* tools.

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