propose_design_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool would open a pull request, what that artifact contains, and that Kiln Pro is required, but it does not cover permissions, idempotency, side effects on branches, or failure behavior.

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 short and front-loads the core action before the Kiln Pro requirement and upgrade link. There is minor redundancy between 'Kiln Pro would open...' and 'Requires Kiln Pro,' but it remains efficient.

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 mutation-like tool with 9 parameters, nested review_artifact, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It explains the high-level outcome and Pro gating but leaves critical invocation details and parameter semantics undocumented.

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?

There are 9 parameters and schema description coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate but adds almost no parameter meaning. It mentions 'branch's changes' generically but does not explain title, design_id, source_branch_id, target_branch_id, reviewer_user_id, review_artifact, or other fields.

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: proposing a branch's changes for review before merging. It further clarifies that this opens a reviewable pull request with diff, comments, and merge record, which distinguishes it from direct merge or review actions.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition ('before merging') and a prerequisite ('Requires Kiln Pro'), but does not explicitly compare alternatives such as merge_design_branches or review_design_pull_request. The when-to-use context is implied rather than fully guided.

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