Spec

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the document is treated as opaque, that puts require an expected_revision to prevent clobbering, and that an Effort may hold both a Map and a Spec. This adds meaningful operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 compactly convey the core purpose, the opaque-document convention, the lack of section editing, and the concurrency safeguard. The structure is front-loaded and every clause earns its place, avoiding redundancy with the schema.

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 provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it explains the operation type, document format, the relationship to Effort/Map, and the concurrency control. With no output schema, the description still makes clear that omitting content returns the current document, and the schema fills in the rest. It is complete for its 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?

While the schema gives 100% coverage for all 5 parameters, the description adds contextual meaning by explicitly tying expected_revision to the concurrency mechanism and describing content as a wholesale replacement. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions and aids correct parameter usage.

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-resource pair ('Get or put a Spec as a whole opaque document') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like edit_map by noting that nothing edits a Spec section by section. It also reveals the conventional format (YAML frontmatter), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clarifies when to use this tool (whole-document get/put) and explicitly states that section-by-section editing is not supported, implying a contrast with tools like edit_map. It also provides a key usage constraint (expected_revision for concurrency), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use examples beyond the section-editing point.

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