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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint false annotation: it resets hull stats, installs default loadout, returns all installed modules to station storage, moves all cargo to station storage, is free of charge, irreversible, and requires a shipyard. It even describes the return condition 'already_current' when the ship already matches. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 description is long but every clause adds value: purpose, side effects, cost, reversibility, requirements, and return value. The parenthetical structure makes it slightly dense, but it is front-loaded with the main action and then expands logically. It is not wasteful, though a more segmented format could improve readability.

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 carries the burden of explaining return behavior, which it does (returns already_current). It also covers prerequisites (shipyard), side effects (modules and cargo moved to storage), cost (free), and reversibility (irreversible). The description is complete for this complex mutation tool.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter, session_id, with a clear description of its purpose. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, no additional explanation is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Refit your active ship to its latest class specifications.' It further clarifies the action by explaining that hull stats are reset and the class's current default loadout is installed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like install_mod or uninstall_mod.

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 description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to pick up a balance pass — either a hull-stat rebalance or a change to the class's canonical default loadout.' It also notes that it is 'Offered to every ship of a re-specced class,' giving clear context on when the tool becomes relevant. The requirement of a shipyard is also mentioned.

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