propose_graph_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the proposal lands for human approval (a state-change), which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens after proposal, whether it can be undone, permissions required, or what the response looks like. For a mutating tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, compact sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and outcome. However, it is almost too brief—it sacrifices needed behavioral context for 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?

Given that there is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, this description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The tool involves proposing a node with multiple parameters, yet only the high-level purpose is stated. The agent would need to infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is risky. Sibling differentiation is missing.

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 mentions none of the four parameters (name, tier, node_type, description). The description gives no meaning beyond what the schema types imply (strings). With zero coverage and no parameter details, an agent is left guessing about required values, constraints, or relationships.

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 clear verb (Propose) and resource (graph node), with a distinctive outcome (lands as Proposed for human approval). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like propose_changeset or propose_belief, though the phrase 'graph node' hints at a different domain. It is not a tautology but could be more specific about what 'graph node' entails.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a workflow of proposing for human approval, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives. Sibling tools like propose_changeset, propose_belief, and reaffirm_belief exist in the same namespace, and without any usage guidance an agent might select the wrong one.

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