Save Codex correction proposals

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that stored proposals are held for review and not automatically added to the evaluation set, clarifying side effects.

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 two short sentences with no extraneous content. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a single secondary sentence for behavioral context, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and interim state of proposals, but it does not mention return values (e.g., success indication, stored proposal IDs). For a simple tool with no output schema, this leaves the agent uncertain about the result of the call.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. However, it contains no information about the 'author' or 'proposals' parameters, their defaults, constraints (maxItems, minItems), or the structure of proposal objects.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stores') and resource ('Codex-generated proposals'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like save_annotation_and_next. The additional context about proposals not entering the evaluation set until user approval further clarifies its unique role.

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 implies usage after Codex generates proposals and for storage before user review, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling comparisons are made.

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