maintain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers none. Actions like prune, purge, cleanup, and consolidate are potentially destructive, yet there is no mention of side effects, reversibility, permissions, or safety defaults. The dry_run parameter is not mentioned either.

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 concise in length but under-specified. It front-loads a generic category ('Housekeeping & federation operations') and a list of actions, but the content is too sparse to be useful. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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 complexity (20 parameters, 12 actions, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how actions relate to parameters, what each action does, or when to use them. The existence of an output schema is the only mitigating factor, but it cannot compensate for the missing operational context.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings, but it does not. It only lists the action names and leaves 20 parameters (e.g., data, merge, archive_sources, project_path) completely unexplained. The description adds no value beyond the raw 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 clearly identifies the tool as handling 'Housekeeping & federation operations' and lists 12 specific actions (prune, archive, cleanup, etc.), which helps an agent grasp the scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reflect or explore by its maintenance-focused role, though the term 'federation' remains vague.

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. The description simply lists actions without any context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. An agent gets no help deciding between 'maintain' and a sibling like 'govern' or 'understand'.

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