propose_flag_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: user-set flags are skipped and never overwritten, and 0 clears an agent-set flag. This is real context an agent couldn't derive from annotations alone.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the dry-run framing and the color semantics front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 proposal tool with no output schema and no annotations covering results, the description should say what the dry run produces and how to commit it (e.g. via apply_plan). It covers flag-overwrite behavior well but leaves the workflow outcome unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains color semantics well (default 4 = blue, 0 = clear an agent-set flag), but card_ids is left entirely undefined beyond its obvious meaning, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('flagging cards') and clarifies the mode ('Dry run'), so the agent knows this proposes rather than applies a change. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other propose_*/plan siblings, but the name and verb make the intent unambiguous.

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?

'Dry run' implies this must be followed by a commit step, and the sibling set (apply_plan, reject_plan) supports that workflow, but the description never names apply_plan or states when to prefer this over alternatives. Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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