Phased bumpversion

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: change detection that skips unchanged upstream phases, cascading from phase N to all phases >= N, and the exact conditions that disable auto-start. It still doesn't state that version files are mutated or what dry_run does, but the added workflow semantics are substantive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the auto_start paragraph is coherent, but it devotes nearly the entire body to one parameter while ignoring six others, and the trailing 'Concept: CONCEPT:RM-BUMP' line adds little for an agent. Proportion is skewed rather than wasteful, but not well balanced.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema, mutation-capable workflow tool, the description covers the workflow concept and auto_start behavior but leaves dry_run (a safety-relevant flag), part, single_phase, allow_pre_commit, config and progress entirely unexplained. An agent cannot safely invoke the full surface from this description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description must carry the burden, and it explains only 4 (auto_start, start_phase, project_filter, force) — reasonably well for auto_start and start_phase. The remaining six (part, config, dry_run, progress, single_phase, allow_pre_commit) get no explanation at all, so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Execute the phased bumpversion workflow: pre-commits + phased bumping.' An agent knows this runs a phased version bump, but the description never distinguishes it from close siblings such as repository_manager_bump_version, repository_manager_bulk_bump, or repository_manager_phased_push, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 real conditional guidance on auto_start vs start_phase and when the tool stands down (project_filter or force set), which implies usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over bump_version/bulk_bump/phased_push, so the alternative-selection dimension is absent.

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