organize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that apply=true writes keywords, that each operation writes a _organized copy, and that undo moves outputs to a journal folder, never deletes, and refuses when files changed since writing.

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 dense and information-rich, but the single block of text contains several run-on clauses and the final 'Actions:' list partially duplicates what was already described inline and in the schema enum. It is not poorly sized, but structure and conciseness could be improved with bullets or clearer separation.

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 complex multi-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main actions, selection criteria, side effects, and undo safety. Minor gaps remain, such as exact return values for history and precise required arguments per action, but the description gives enough context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema only has action and args, but the description enriches both by explaining each action's relevant parameters such as clip_name, keyword, role, keywords, mode, rating, audio_role, video_role, and limit. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not provide a complete per-action argument spec.

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 a bulk library logging and ledger utility, and enumerates specific operations like organize_auto, organize_keywords, organize_rate, organize_roles, history, and undo. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools by domain and action, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 gives a concrete workflow: select clips, then apply keywords, ratings, or roles; it also explains when history and undo are relevant. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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