Propose VisiMark rules for a plain table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially given. The description adds real value by confirming the output is 'proposals only and never writes' and that a separate tool performs the mutation, which clarifies the non-mutating contract beyond the hint. It stops short of describing proposal format or behavior on tables with no derivable formulas.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and benefit before the usage rule and the write-safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter, annotation-covered tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the non-writing contract. Only edge-case behavior (e.g., a table with no derivable formulas, or error handling when neither path nor content is supplied) is left unaddressed.

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 the schema itself states the 'give this or `path`, never both' constraint, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Derive the formulas an existing Markdown table already obeys') and the concrete artifact produced ('propose them as `vmark` rules'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling visimark_infer_apply, so an agent can tell the propose step from the write step without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when: 'Run this before hand-authoring rules for a document that already has its numbers.' And it names the alternative with its selecting condition: proposals are returned here, while `visimark_infer_apply` writes them. The routing decision is fully determined by the text.

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