propose_manifestwork

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: the proposal is not applied, must pass static guardrails and a Kyverno dry-run, is stored pending, and requires an explicit approval token. These details go well beyond the structured fields.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a bulleted Args block with inline explanations, and a concise workflow paragraph. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the description covers inputs, constraints (allowed kinds, pinned images), validation (guardrails, dry-run), and follow-up approval, the context is complete for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly and set expectations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides essential semantics for all four parameters: cluster (target name), name (kebab-case), summary (human-readable justification), and manifests_json (JSON array with allowed kinds, namespaced, pinned images). This fully compensates for the minimal schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Propose' with resource 'a change to one cluster as an OCM ManifestWork' and explicitly states 'Does NOT apply anything', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_manifestwork. It also mentions the pending approval workflow, further clarifying its role.

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 statement 'Does NOT apply anything' provides a clear when-not condition, and the description explains the approval workflow (human operator must approve). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'Use this when X, use apply_manifestwork when Y', so it stops short of full 5.

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