propose_change

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

The description discloses that this tool returns a 'plano pendente de aprovação do usuário' (pending user approval plan) and its mandatory-before-write_file role, which is good behavioral context. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't explain what happens if changes are made without proposing first, validation behavior, or the approval workflow details beyond a brief mention.

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 compact — a few sentences in Portuguese covering purpose, usage context, required content, and return behavior. It's reasonably front-loaded with the mandatory-step framing. Slightly dense but each sentence earns its place, though no structural formatting (bullets, headers) is used.

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?

The description explains the workflow position (mandatory pre-write_file step), what data to include, file path convention, and the pending-approval return. With an output schema present, return details are partially covered. It could elaborate on approval mechanics and error cases, but for a declaration tool it's reasonably complete for a 3-param, no-nested-object tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 3 parameters. The description explicitly names 'feature', 'description' (descrição objetiva do propósito), and 'files' (lista de paths relativos à raiz do projeto). The files parameter gets useful semantics (relative to project root). However, feature and description just restate their schema names without deeper nuance.

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 is 'Primeiro passo, obrigatório antes de qualquer write_file' (first step, mandatory before any write_file), declaring a feature/alteration with files. It specifies what the tool does: declare a feature, objective description, and list of paths to be created or modified. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings beyond write_file context, and the purpose is somewhat implicit in the tool name.

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?

Explicitly states this is the mandatory first step before any write_file operation, gives clear guidance on what to include (feature, objective description, list of relative paths), and establishes a precondition/ordering relationship with sibling tools. It also states it returns a pending plan awaiting user approval, clarifying the workflow sequence with approve_change/reject_change.

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