propose_page

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation but not destruction. The description adds that the page is staged at 'proposed/<path>' and requires user acceptance via resolve_proposal. It mentions error condition. Lacks detail on response or idempotency.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, error/alternative.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, staging, error condition, and alternatives. Minor omission: no mention of return value or confirmation, but acceptable for this tool type.

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% with property descriptions. The description adds that body is 'full markdown (frontmatter optional)' and path is 'relative to vault root'. This is consistent with schema but adds minimal new meaning. 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 proposes a new page, specifying the verb 'propose' and resource 'new page in vault'. It differentiates from siblings propose_edit and append_to by indicating it fails if page exists and directing to those alternatives.

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?

Explicitly says to use for new pages and provides guidance on when not to use: 'Errors if a page already exists... use propose_edit or append_to in that case.' This gives clear context and alternatives.

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