Propose TNL diff

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world false. The description adds that it stages changes for human review and returns a diff_id, which is helpful. But it doesn't disclose what happens on error or any side effects beyond the return value.

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the verb 'Stage' and concisely states purpose and return value.

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 there's no output schema, the description usefully mentions the return diff_id. For a two-parameter tool with good schema docs, this is nearly complete; more could be said about validation or constraints.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 tool stages a proposed TNL change (batch of creates and updates) for human review, and names the return value (diff_id) for use with a sibling tool (approve_tnl_diff). This distinguishes it well from siblings like get_impacted_tnls or verify.

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 tool's use is clearly explained: it's for staging a proposal before human review, and the returned diff_id is meant for approve_tnl_diff. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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