Propose fixes for a bibliography

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with the load-bearing detail that nothing is written and the agent must apply the diff itself. It further discloses what safe/unsafe actually mutate and the invariant that unfindable references are never fixed — context well beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior and output format, then layers level semantics compactly. Sentences earn their place, though the level paragraph is dense enough to require careful reading.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the write-safety semantics and level behavior well. The remaining gap is the un-annotated keys/path/offline parameters, which an agent must infer from names alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It fully explains the most consequential parameter (level, including the enum values' behavioral differences), but keys, path, and offline are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (propose edits) and resource (.bib files), plus the concrete output form (unified diff) and the source of the edits (verified records). This is clearly distinguishable from preflight_bib_lookup, preflight_check, and preflight_explain.

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 explicit guidance on level="safe" vs level="unsafe" and instructs showing unsafe diffs to the user before applying. It does not, however, route the agent against any named sibling (e.g. implying bib_lookup must run first), so alternative-selection guidance is strong but incomplete.

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