propose_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: it creates a pull request, indicating a non-destructive proposal. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the file upon creation of the PR. The core behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loads the key verb and resource, and contains no superfluous information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no enums, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks context on return values, error handling, and how it fits with sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage (path, content, message). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Propose a change' and the resource 'any file in the organisation.md repo', and specifies that it creates a pull request. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_section, though not explicitly. The purpose is clear but could be more direct about file editing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_section or add_info. The description implies it's for proposing changes to files via pull request, but does not provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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