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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the LOCAL_AGENT re-run requirement and next_steps.commands, the automatic queuing for GIT/FILE_ARCHIVE, the destructive/wrapping behavior that prior version data becomes inaccessible, and the auth requirements including the api_key fallback.

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 behavioral notes and auth. It is somewhat dense but every sentence carries non-redundant information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes the relevant return behavior (next_steps.commands for LOCAL_AGENT) and the side effect on downstream summary/results/report tools. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke and anticipate results.

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 five parameters. The description adds auth-related context (X-API-Key header vs api_key argument) but supplies no additional semantics for vault_id, author, or comment beyond the schema.

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: 'Creates a new analysis version for an existing code vault.' It clearly distinguishes itself from create-code-vault (new vault) by operating on an existing vault using existing source settings.

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 context of use (reanalyzing an existing vault) and what happens per source type (LOCAL_AGENT vs GIT/FILE_ARCHIVE). It does not explicitly name the sibling to use for creating a new vault, but the 'existing vault' framing implies the distinction.

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