split_condition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does excellently. It discloses key behavioral consequences: following rows freeze, edits stop propagating, finish tag is kept, grouping remains, and the operation is reversible with undo_last. It also explains the non-erroring split:false case, which is valuable safety information.

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 compact yet information-dense, using four sentences to cover purpose, effects, usage guidance, edge-case behavior, and reversibility. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: what happens to the data, when to invoke it, what happens in a specific edge case, and how to undo it. The existence of an output schema means return-value details are not required in the description.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'condition' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description reinforces the concept by repeatedly referencing 'finish tag' and 'twin', adding some semantic context, but does not significantly exceed what the schema documents.

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 specific action ('Cut a twin loose from its family') and the resource (a condition/twin), while detailing the effect: inheritance ends, materials freeze. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like duplicate_condition by explaining that this tool severs inheritance rather than duplicating.

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 provides explicit use case: 'Use when two variants have diverged far enough that following one another is wrong.' It also describes behavior for an edge case (already-owned condition returns split:false) and reversibility, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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