architect_sdd_propose

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by saying the candidate is isolated and that the tool 'Never accepts,' clarifying that it does not commit changes. It still omits failure modes, permission expectations, and whether retries are safe, so the added value is moderate rather than rich.

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, front-loaded with the action and qualified by the key constraint. There is no filler, though the brevity contributes to gaps captured 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 six parameters, only 17% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the structure of the required 'operations' array, the role of 'base_change' or 'operation_id,' or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the 'skill' and 'expected_snapshot' parameters through 'configured skill grant' and 'expected live snapshot,' but it leaves critical required parameters such as 'operations' undocumented and does not explain 'base_change' or 'operation_id.' This is insufficient for a six-parameter tool with low schema coverage.

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 verb and resource with qualifiers: 'Create an isolated candidate' under a 'configured skill grant and expected live snapshot.' However, terms like 'candidate,' 'skill grant,' and 'isolated' are not explained, and the description does not explicitly distinguish this proposal tool from siblings such as architect_sdd_prepare_check, architect_sdd_materialize, or architect_candidate_review.

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 phrase 'Never accepts' implies this is for proposing rather than committing changes, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no explanation of when an agent should choose this over sibling tools like architect_sdd_prepare_check or architect_candidate_review.

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