validate_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the validation purpose but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or what side effects (if any) occur. Critical details like permissions or error handling are omitted.

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 sentence of 11 words, concise but lacking in structure. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices valuable detail that could be added without significant length.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the validation outcome (e.g., success/failure indication), error formats, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The agent must infer from names like 'updates' (ambiguous) and 'project_dir' (clear). No guidance on format, constraints, or relationships is provided.

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 tool validates a post-write update proposal for evidence and conflicts before applying it, specifying the verb 'validate' and the resource 'proposal' in a specific context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'build_proposal_review' or 'build_proposal_template' which focus on building or reviewing rather than validating.

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 implies usage before applying an update proposal but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_proposal_readiness' or 'diff_proposal'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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