propose_antenna_engineering_assumption

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return of a 'review hash' but does not state whether the tool is a read or write operation, what side effects occur, required permissions, or how the proposal is processed. The term 'propose' implies a state change, but without annotation support, the description is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It is concise and free of filler, covering purpose and a key output. This is efficient, though it sacrifices detail in other dimensions.

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 tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the workflow position (e.g., when to propose vs approve), what the review hash is for, or any prerequisites. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential context for correct invocation in the broader pipeline.

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. It hints at 'value' and 'source parameter' (likely 'symbol'), but does not explain job_id, unit, or rationale. The description adds general context but fails to map to the 5-parameter schema meaningfully.

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 a specific action: 'Propose a value for a null/unresolved source parameter' and indicates the tool returns a 'review hash'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_antenna_engineering_assumption and analyze_antenna_source by focusing on proposing a value for unresolved parameters.

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 provides a clear usage context: when a source parameter is 'null/unresolved'. This implies a workflow step before approval, and the 'propose' wording suggests it is the action to take before moving to approval. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the condition is clear enough.

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