harness_propose_change

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

The description discloses key behavior: the change is not applied and waits in pending_changes with a diff. However, with no annotations, more detail would be beneficial, such as what happens on conflicts or auth requirements.

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 two sentences, extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the key behavior.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the diff format, the effect of different ops, or how this tool fits with siblings for a complete 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?

The description adds no information about parameters beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining enums, nested objects, or parameter interactions.

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 it proposes a precise change that is NOT applied but waits for human review. The tool name and description distinguish it from siblings like harness_propose_structure, though explicit differentiation could be stronger.

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 for human-in-the-loop changes without model involvement, but it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like harness_propose_structure or harness_configure. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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