hai_propose_next_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool writes a proposed artifact and that the result is not canonical, which is useful. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, required permissions, or other side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The main action is front-loaded first, and the workflow pointer follows naturally, making the description easy to parse.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema, so return-value documentation is not necessary. Still, the absence of any parameter explanation and minimal behavioral detail leaves the description only minimally complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 adds almost nothing about the two required parameters, project_path and content. The 'NEXT_STEP.proposed.md' filename only weakly implies that content is the file body and project_path is the write location, which is not enough to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific action, 'Write NEXT_STEP.proposed.md', and clarifies the artifact's non-canonical status, which distinguishes it from final/accept operations. It also references the sibling promotion tool, so an agent can tell this tool apart from hai_accept_next_step.

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 gives clear workflow context: propose first, then promote via hai_accept_next_step. The 'not canonical' note provides an implicit exclusion against using this as the final acceptance step, though it does not enumerate alternative tools such as hai_get_next_step.

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