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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a real prerequisite ('Requires repo scope'). However, the dry_run sentence largely restates the schema's own parameter description, and nothing explains what 'execute' actually produces across repos (branches, commits, PRs) or how partial failure is handled.

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 and four short, scannable sentences. The line 'Wraps src/lib/multi-repo-refactor.ts' is an implementation detail that earns no place for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what execution yields and whether the multi-repo refactor is atomic or best-effort; that is missing. Purpose, scoping, auth, and dry-run are covered, so it is adequate but leaves the risk profile of a cross-repo mutation under-specified.

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 all three parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description only re-explains dry_run and adds no semantics for `description` (how detailed must it be?) or `repository_ids` (what happens when omitted versus supplied).

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 pair ('Plan + execute') and resource ('a refactor that spans multiple repos'), plus the scoping qualifier 'owned by the caller'. That separates it from single-repo mutation siblings such as merjax_apply_patch or merjax_atomic_multi_file_commit, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear when-to-use signal (multi-repo scope) and a safe-preview path via `dry_run: true`, but never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for a single-repo or single-file change. The agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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