change_propose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully implies the change is not applied immediately ('for later review and approval'), but says nothing about permissions, whether reviewers are notified, whether the proposal is editable afterward, or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good. It is under-specified rather than over-long, so conciseness is fine but the brevity is not compensating for the gaps elsewhere.

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 six-parameter mutation-ish tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is not complete enough. An agent cannot know the required fields, the enum semantics, or the downstream lifecycle from this text 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?

All six parameters (title, summary, risk, files, taskId, createdBy) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. The agent gets no guidance on what 'files' expects, whether 'taskId' links to task_manage, the meaning of the risk enum, or the default of createdBy.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a proposed code or workspace change.' An agent knows this creates a proposal artifact rather than applying a change. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling review_request, which an agent may conflate with this tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as review_request despite that tool being an obvious sibling. The phrase 'for later review and approval' hints at the workflow stage but stops short of telling the agent when to pick this tool over review_request or artifact_manage.

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