research_propose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical safety behavior: 'This never executes stored text.' This is valuable beyond the schema and addresses a common security concern for storing untrusted content. However, it doesn't mention other behaviors like idempotency, permissions, or return details.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding the safety note. It is concise and appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, with no wasted words.

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?

With 8 parameters, 5 required, and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity. It gives the core purpose and a safety guarantee, but lacks context on how to use the parameters, what 'untrusted' implies for processing, or when to set mode. The presence of an output schema helps slightly, but the description alone is not enough.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 8 parameters (e.g., mode, metadata, idempotency_key). The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no value for understanding how to fill them correctly.

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 action ('Create') and the object ('an untrusted candidate record'), which is a specific resource type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record, query, and sync, which are read/validate operations.

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 the tool is for creating a new candidate record, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The distinction from siblings is implicit based on the verb 'create'.

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