Refine a 2ools project

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'consumes one persisted project iteration', 'preserves the base source as currentCode', and 'returns an asynchronous job_id'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no extraneous words. Every sentence contributes essential information about the action, constraints, and return type.

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?

The description explains the key outcome (protected child version, job_id) and an important constraint (consumes iteration). However, it does not cover how to poll the async job, error conditions, or the effect of the 'model' parameter beyond the schema. Still, for a tool with well-documented schema and annotations, this is largely sufficient.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 clearly states the tool creates a 'protected child version' from a 'saved base version' and 'concrete review feedback', with specific verbs and resources. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'build_from_conversation' by mentioning persistence of base source and consumption of an iteration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'build_from_conversation' or 'continue_project'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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