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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally: no-op on matching commit/content hash, refusal of authored mode unless force=true, forced versions becoming mode=generated, and scene inputs returning changed=false with reason='scene'. These are concrete behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence carries distinct information: main behavior, no-op condition, forced-authored behavior, manual invocation, and scene edge case. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when it does nothing, when it refuses, what happens under force, and how scene diagrams are handled. The lack of annotations is compensated by unusually thorough behavioral detail.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining the authored/generated mode interaction and what force actually produces ('new version is mode=generated'). It does not elaborate on ref or agent, but those are already well documented in 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-fetch mapped GitHub paths and append a version if they changed.' This clearly conveys the operation and outcome. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like diagram_generate, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives an explicit invocation trigger: 'No webhook or periodic worker — call this when you want a refresh.' It also clarifies when the tool refuses (authored mode without force) and when it no-ops. It does not name alternative tools, so it misses the explicit alternatives part of the top score.

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