acm_reorganize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that dry_run previews without changes, actual run performs a backup, auto-tags high-confidence notes, reports duplicates for review, and never merges. This provides good insight into side effects and safety, though it could mention impact on existing tags.

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 somewhat verbose with internal codes like E7-3 and E9-1 that may confuse an AI agent. It has a clear Args section but could be more concise. The use of bullet-like formatting helps, but overall it's not maximally efficient.

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 complexity (4 params, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: preview, backup, autotagging, and duplicate reporting. It addresses all parameters and the tool's core action. It could mention return value specifics despite having output schema, but it's largely complete.

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 compensate. It explains all four parameters: deck (root deck), dry_run (preview vs apply), profile, and include_subdecks. The dry_run parameter is well-described with its default and effects. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 states the tool's purpose: massive reorganization of a deck, including retagging and reporting duplicates. It uses specific verb 'reorganize' and resource 'mazo' (deck). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like acm_apply_tags or acm_audit, which have related but distinct functions.

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 explains when to use dry_run=True (preview) vs False (actual application). It also notes that it never merges duplicates (decision #2). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like acm_annotate or acm_auto_classify, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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