propose_doc_patches

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the tool is 'review-only' and does not write project files. While annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, this likely refers to broader side effects (e.g., invoking generation), not file modification, so there is no contradiction. The non-destructive file behavior is explicitly disclosed.

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 entire description is one succinct, front-loaded sentence that includes the core action, the deliverable's nature, and the critical non-destructive constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and reasonable annotations, the description covers the essential context. It could mention the relationship to create_audit more explicitly, but the schema already does that. Overall, the tool is adequately specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage: audit_id is described as 'Identifier returned by create_audit.' The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the structured data carries the semantic weight.

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 action ('Generate'), the object ('cited review-only document replacements'), and the key constraint ('without writing project files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform audits or build reports, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 phrase 'review-only' and 'without writing project files' conveys when the tool is appropriate—when the agent wants to propose replacements without applying changes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear given the sibling list.

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