propose_entity_stubs

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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it creates stub pages with frontmatter, auto-builds a 'Mentioned in' block, skips existing pages, and explains the rejection mechanism. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with creating non-destructive stubs. No contradictions.

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 and well-structured: first sentence states core function, followed by details, then workflow context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It front-loads the key action and uses clear segmentation.

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 complexity of the tool and its role in a multi-tool workflow, the description covers essential context: the cold-start loop, skip behavior, and rejection handling. No output schema exists, but the description explains what the user gets. Slight gap: does not detail how to interact with stubs after creation (use resolve_proposal), but sibling tools cover that.

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% and both parameters are described. The description adds value by explaining the intent of 'bucket' (thematic grouping) and 'candidates' (forwarding scan payload for rich stubs) beyond the schema's technical descriptions. It also mentions the 200-item limit not present in 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?

The description clearly states the tool stages stub entity pages for candidate slugs from scan_entity_candidates, with specific details about destination path, frontmatter, and auto-built blocks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like propose_page by focusing on entity stubs and being part of a defined cold-start loop.

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 explains when to use the tool: after scan_entity_candidates, and before resolve_proposal. It notes that it skips existing pages, implying not to use for edits. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like propose_page or propose_edit, which slightly reduces clarity. The workflow context is strong.

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