organize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that apply=true actually writes, that each action produces a _organized copy rather than mutating in place, that undo moves outputs to a journal undone/ folder and never deletes, and that writes are refused when a file changed since it was written. These guard rails and side-effect semantics are exactly what an agent needs to call a write tool safely.

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?

Content is front-loaded and dense with no filler prose. The trailing 'Actions: ...' sentence merely restates the action enum already present in the schema, which is a small 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 six-action multiplexer with a nested args object and no output schema, the description covers the write/copy semantics, selection criteria, ledger behavior, and undo guard conditions well. It does not characterize the shape of returned data (e.g., what organize_auto proposes or what history emits), leaving a minor gap.

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%, but the schema's args is an opaque nested object; the description compensates by naming the real inner arguments (clip_name glob, keyword, role, mode add|remove|replace, rating favorite|rejected|clear, audio_role, video_role, limit, n). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 names a concrete function (bulk library logging/ledger) and enumerates the six operations the multiplexer exposes (organize_auto, organize_keywords, organize_rate, organize_roles, history, undo), so an agent can tell what each action does. It stops short of differentiating the tool from siblings like mark, edit, or inspect, which could plausibly overlap with rating/keyword work.

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?

It gives a clear workflow: select clips with clip_name (glob), keyword and/or role, then dispatch to organize_keywords, organize_rate, or organize_roles, and it explains organize_auto's caption/transcript source. It never states when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this one, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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