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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that every change is logged with the tick, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether the flock must exist. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 first sentence is concise and effective, but the description then diverges into a long, tangential discussion about a guestbook correction, a specific trace, seed 42, and open scientific questions. This extra content is not relevant for tool selection or invocation and adds significant noise, undermining conciseness.

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 has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the basic action and logging but lacks parameter semantics, usage context, error conditions, and return behavior. The tangent about scientific questions does not fill any of these gaps, leaving the description incomplete for an agent to use the tool 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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It refers to 'three weights' but never names or elaborates on cohesion, alignment, separation, or flock_id. It does not clarify the meaning or expected effects of each weight, leaving the agent to guess from the schema's bare minimum.

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 specific verb 'Adjust' and clearly identifies the resource: 'one or more of the three weights of a running flock.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flock_create, flock_step, or flock_get, which handle different operations. Even though a tangent follows, the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'of a running flock' implies the tool is for modifying an existing flock, not for creating or stepping it. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions such as 'only use on active flocks.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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