feature_propose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: 'The goal is created if it does not exist' and 'the id is allocated atomically... so concurrent sessions cannot collide.' This reveals side effects and concurrency guarantees beyond a simple 'create' statement. It does not mention return format or error conditions, but the atomic/allocation and goal-creation traits are substantial.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key concurrency/creation behavior and then a crisp usage guardrail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 eight parameters, two required, no output schema, and a large sibling family, the description covers purpose, when-not-to-use, goal-creation side effect, and atomic id allocation. The only notable gap is that a successful propose's return value is not described, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds context around goal auto-creation and id allocation, which relates to 'goal', but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Record a feature, guardrail, schema change, risk or mitigation', so the agent immediately knows this is a create/insert operation. It further distinguishes itself from read/tracking siblings by instructing 'check feature_list first' and by framing itself as a persistence operation.

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?

It gives explicit inclusion criteria ('what would otherwise be lost, is actionable') and an explicit exclusion ('is not already tracked -- check feature_list first'). The main gap is that it does not name a modifier sibling like feature_update as the option for already-tracked items.

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