Propose an edit (published for review)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the scratch-copy/publish model, that the document is never edited directly, the auto-accept possibility, the two possible status values, and the exact-match-once constraint with structured failure feedback. This is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent could not infer otherwise.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then failure handling in a logical sequence with no filler. It is somewhat dense with parentheticals and quoted status values, but every sentence carries load.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mutation model, permissions/auto-accept nuance, expected return status values, and error recovery. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by giving the `search` parameter operational meaning (must match exactly once, failures come back as status 'edit_failed' and should be refined and retried) and by noting the returned `status` must be inspected, which adds value over the static field docs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('applies search/replace edits to a scratch copy of the session's file and publishes the result as a proposal') and immediately distinguishes it from a direct-edit tool via 'It never edits the document directly.' An agent can tell what it does and that it is not the same as propose_files or read_document.

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?

Explains the two possible outcomes and when each occurs: auto-accept armed means status 'applied', otherwise a human Accept in Galley is required, and failures return status 'edit_failed' with a refine-and-retry instruction. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as propose_files, but the usage context is clear.

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