lifeos__propose_edge

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

Discloses routing through CitationVerifier and NoveltyScorer and that the edge lands in the Curator inbox with reviewState=proposed. No annotations exist so description carries full burden; mostly transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key action, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: action, processing steps, and outcome.

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?

Covers purpose, processing, and destination but omits return value or confirmation of success. With no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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%, baseline at 3. Description adds no new parameter meaning beyond indicating the edge type is 'typed' and the overall process, which is already clear from schema.

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?

Explicitly states the tool proposes a typed semantic edge between two vault nodes, distinguishing it from siblings like accept_edge and reject_edge. Includes routing and outcome details.

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?

Implies usage for creating edge proposals, with accept/reject as counterparts, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance.

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