celebrum.propose_guardrail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it does not state whether proposing guardrail adaptations is read-only, persists anything, or returns a proposal artifact. The risk tiers are mentioned but their behavioral implications are left unexplained.

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 focused sentence with no repetition or filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It earns its place despite its brevity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description alone must explain what happens when the tool is called. It says what is proposed but not what the caller receives or whether the proposal changes state, leaving the tool incompletely specified.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4; the description has no parameter semantics to add, and none are needed.

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 states a specific action ('Propose') and resource ('persona guardrail adaptations') and adds a distinctive risk-tiering dimension ('low/medium/high'). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as approve_guardrail, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulate or approve_guardrail. The verb 'Propose' hints at a pre-approval workflow, but the description never states conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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