propose_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses persistence ('stores your proposal on the comment') and downstream consumption ('dev team can review the code and a live preview'), which is useful. However, it omits whether a proposal overwrites prior proposals, permission/auth requirements, and whether the action is reversible.

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 payload, followed by the storage/consumer effect and the prerequisite lookup. No filler or repetition.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, payload expectations, storage behavior, and the prerequisite read step. It stops short of describing the response or edge-case behavior (overwriting, validation failure), leaving a small gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real context: it clarifies that html is the change-resolving markup and css is optional and should be omitted when styling is inlined, plus that id should come from a prior lookup. This meaningfully supplements the schema descriptions.

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 ('Submit the modified UI for a comment') and immediately identifies the payload (rewritten HTML with optional CSS) that resolves the PM's request. It also explains where the result lands ('stores your proposal on the comment'), so an agent can distinguish this from read-only siblings like get_comment or list_comments.

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?

It gives a clear operational sequence: call get_comment first to see the original element, computed styles, and screenshot, then submit the proposal. That establishes when to use this tool relative to a specific sibling, though it does not state exclusions (e.g. what to do if the proposal is rejected or how it differs from update_status).

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