prd_refine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'preserving version history', which is a key safety detail, but it does not specify if the action is destructive, any authorization requirements, or what happens on conflict.

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-loading the purpose and adding a key behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core behavior but does not mention the return format or any prerequisites (e.g., that the PRD must exist). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that prd_id and feedback are needed, providing no additional semantic nuance.

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 action ('Refine an existing PRD') and the resource ('PRD'). The verb 'refine' and phrase 'based on feedback' distinguish it from generation or validation tools, though no explicit sibling differentiation is made.

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 usage when feedback is available to improve a saved PRD, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prd_generate or prd_validate, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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