Refine a 2ools project

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it consumes one persisted project iteration, returns an asynchronous job_id, and preserves the base source as currentCode. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate, making side effects and async behavior clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key behavioral notes. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 captures the main operation, side effect (consumes iteration), and async return (job_id). Since there is no output schema, it briefly notes the return type but does not explain how to poll or what the job does afterward, which is a minor gap for a tool with this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only reinforces that feedback should be concrete, which aligns with the schema's description but adds no new information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('one protected child version') and defines the inputs ('saved base version and concrete review feedback'). It also clarifies the outcome (preserves base source, consumes an iteration, returns an async job), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_from_conversation or approve_version.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a saved base version and concrete review feedback. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus build_from_conversation or other version-creation tools, so guidance is only implied.

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