extractMethodExecute

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool performs a write, requires a prior lock, depends on transport configuration, and has no rollback if activation later fails. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states purpose and sequence, the second states the critical write behavior and prerequisites, and the third warns about failure semantics. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow position, the input source, required preconditions, and the non-rollback behavior. Minor ambiguity remains about whether activation is performed by this tool or a separate sibling, but this does not block 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 input schema has 100% coverage and already documents the single parameter as the refactoring JSON returned by extractMethodPreview. The description reinforces that the value comes from the preview but adds no new syntax, format, or type guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific workflow step ('Third step of extract-method'), a concrete action ('apply what the preview showed'), and a clear effect ('This WRITES the object'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like extractMethodPreview and extractMethodEvaluate, which are earlier steps in the same sequence.

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 frames when to use it by calling it the third step after previewing, and gives concrete prerequisites: the object must be unlocked and a transport request is needed outside $TMP. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid, but the workflow order plus the preview reference in the schema make the intended context clear.

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