aethis_refine_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation/safety profile. The description adds that the operation appends a 'field_extraction' guidance hint and re-runs discovery, which is useful behavioral context, but it discloses no auth requirements or reversibility detail beyond that.

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?

Three short sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded. The first and third sentences overlap somewhat ('Add guidance to improve field discovery' vs 'Adds a field_extraction guidance hint and re-runs discovery'), a minor redundancy.

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?

For a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, trigger, and the resulting side effect adequately. Remaining gaps around auth handling are covered by the well-documented key parameters in the schema.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including the feedback example. The description adds no syntax or format detail for parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: adding field-discovery guidance and re-running discovery. It reads clearly and implies a distinct role from siblings like aethis_discover_fields or aethis_add_guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those tools.

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?

Provides a clear trigger condition: 'Use when fields are missing, misnamed, or enum values are incomplete.' However, it names no alternative tool or when-not condition, so routing against siblings like aethis_validate_fields is left to inference.

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