vm_propose_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add two real facts: the result is immutable and reviewable, and nothing is activated. It does not say whether anything is persisted, what permissions or preconditions apply, or whether the proposal is idempotent across repeated calls.

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?

Two short sentences with the non-activation caveat front-loaded, and no filler. The first sentence is dense with jargon ('immutable, reviewable set of tested procedures') that costs clarity despite the 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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description must explain what a proposal call yields, especially since a downstream apply step likely consumes it. It also omits the meaning of the only required argument, leaving the definition insufficient for a mutation-adjacent tool in a multi-step workflow.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'ids' has no description at all. The description never mentions it, leaving the agent to guess whether these are procedure IDs, session IDs, or update IDs, and whether multiple IDs are combined into one proposal or one proposal each.

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 verb 'prepare' and the object 'set of tested procedures' give a rough sense of the action, and 'does not activate anything' narrows it. But nothing in the description mentions updates, proposals, or identifiers, so an agent cannot connect 'procedures' to the tool's update-related siblings or to the required 'ids' argument without guessing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. 'Does not activate anything' hints at a staging step before vm_apply_update, but that relationship is left for the agent to infer from sibling names rather than stated.

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