propose_context_change

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) and don't convey the key behavioral trait: this tool creates a commit/PR and requires human approval. The description discloses this workflow clearly. It could add more about side effects (e.g., what happens after approval), but the core behavioral context is well covered.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core concept (one coherent change) and then adding the approval workflow. The IMPORTANT callout is effective. Slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 2 required params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what to bundle, how to get approval, and what to provide. It doesn't explain the return value or post-call behavior, but with no output schema and clear annotations, this is a minor 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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the semantic relationship between parameters: changes must form ONE coherent proposal, and summary becomes the commit message/PR title. This goes beyond the schema's individual field 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: propose one coherent change to the context, bundling multiple files into a single logical decision. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the proposal/commit/PR workflow, which is unique among get_context, search, and fetch.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: bundle everything that belongs together into ONE call, and never one per file. It also provides critical usage guidance: show the user exactly what will change and get explicit approval BEFORE calling. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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