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

Goes well beyond the annotations: corrections persist across later uploads, only re-home files, never remove map entries or alter object names/access/answers, are undoable at Data sources › Scans, are refused while a scan is queued or running, and cannot wait for approval. It also states the auth requirement (autonomous key that sees the whole map).

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-loads the operations, then consequences, then constraints. Dense but each sentence carries information; the run-on sentence combining persistence, non-destructiveness, and undo is slightly overloaded.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers effects, reversibility, blocking conditions, approval limitations, and permission requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 adds the meaningful constraint that systems and paths must be exact values taken from list_sources. It does not restate the per-operation parameter mapping, which the schema already covers.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Correct how uploaded files are grouped into systems') and immediately enumerates the four concrete operations (move, split, merge, rename). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like build_map or submit_sources without opening the schema.

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?

States the precondition to use exact systems and paths from list_sources, and instructs asking the human for the precise choice. This gives clear context for invocation, though it does not explicitly name non-preferred alternatives to route away from.

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