Erinys Backfill

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints at idempotency via 'event-ledger idempotency' and scope-limit via 'bounded', but it does not disclose mutation side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or what apply mode changes.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so there is no wasted text. However, its telegraphic jargon reduces clarity for a tool with this much behavioral and parameter complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition omits parameter meanings, mode semantics, and safety-relevant behavior.

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 for all five parameters. It only obliquely implies the plan/apply distinction for 'mode'; critical fields such as expected_plan_digest, repair_temporal_projection, run_key, and items remain undefined.

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 states a specific action ('Plan or apply') and resource ('bounded historical records'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as erinys_batch_save or erinys_save, which an agent would need to distinguish backfill from bulk insert.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus erinys_batch_save, erinys_save, or other siblings, nor when to choose plan mode versus apply mode. The phrase 'plan or apply' only implies a workflow; it does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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