consensus_propose_supersession

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

The description discloses key behaviors: writing a file, expiration logic, opt-in conditional, and fast-path routing. Annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the write operation and do not contradict.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It contains multiple pieces of useful information but remains a single paragraph without excess wording.

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 covers the main functionality and edge cases (opt-in, fast-path), but lacks details on return values beyond the two special cases, error conditions, or prerequisites like the config file requirement.

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% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters (target_decision_id, new_decision, reason). Their purpose is only implied by context, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 action: 'Open a cross-IDE supersession proposal.' It specifies writing to pending_conflicts.jsonl with expiration and mentions opt-in and fast-path behaviors. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like supersede_decision and consensus_check.

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 explains when to use the tool (for proposing a supersession) and provides context on opt-in and fast-path. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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