glm_5_propose_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that files are not changed until approval, which is key behavioral info. However, it omits details on authorization needs, rate limits, or how the proposal is stored/retrieved.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and immediately addresses the key constraint (no file changes until approval).

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how to track the proposal. It lacks info on constraints like maximum items for operations/commands and does not mention expected output or follow-up steps, making it incomplete for complex usage.

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% and the description does not explain any parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify the structure of 'operations' or the role of 'commands', leaving the agent to rely solely on 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 verb 'Propose' and the resource 'scoped patch', distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply or approve. It explicitly notes that no files are changed until later approval, which differentiates it from direct modification tools.

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 indicates when to use this tool (proposing a reviewable patch) and clarifies the non-destructive nature. It implies a two-step process (propose then approve), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it.

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