propose_modify_key_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the two-phase proposal pattern (propose now, resolve later, present to user first), which is real context beyond the schema. However, it omits permissions, conflict/staleness behavior, and whether the proposal is persisted.

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 tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by usage and the follow-up action. Parenthetical examples earn their place; nothing is padded.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: purpose, trigger conditions, and the required follow-up (resolve_proposal). It is close to complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as conflicting or stale proposals.

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 all four parameters (including the optional key_prefix and the replacement semantics of key_variants) are already documented in the schema. The description's examples ('["Default"]') duplicate schema content and add no new parameter meaning.

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 an update to the key variants of an existing record. It is distinguishable from siblings like propose_modify_fields or propose_modify_buffer by the 'key variants' resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions ('adding a record with no variants' or 'expanding a fleet') and routes the agent to the next step ('present to the user before calling resolve_proposal'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. versus propose_add_record).

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