propose_mailbox_md_edit

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

The description explains that the renter will see the suggestion and can accept, reject, or modify it, which discloses the non-immediate, proposal-based behavior. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), which already indicate it's not read-only. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second provides usage context. No unnecessary words; 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?

Given the tool has only 2 required parameters fully described in the schema and an output schema (not shown but present), the description provides sufficient context about the proposal workflow and when to use it. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description reinforces the purpose of the parameters (reasoning, suggested content) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Propose changes to the renter's MAILBOX.md instructions with reasoning.' It identifies the specific resource (MAILBOX.md), action (propose), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_rule and get_mailbox_md by focusing on proposals rather than direct edits or rule creation.

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 includes an explicit usage guideline: 'Use this when you observe patterns that could be codified into standing instructions.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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