Normalize ICC Plus project

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

Annotations offer no hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description must carry the burden. It implies mutation through actions like 'migrate', 'repair', and 'rebuild', but omits critical safety context such as the dry_run default, validation_policy behavior, and potential side effects on existing data.

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 a single concise sentence, but it lists four actions without prioritizing the most critical behavioral elements. It is not front-loaded with the dry_run safety mechanism or validation policy, so while compact, it lacks effective structure for agent decision-making.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no supporting annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits the dry-run default, validation policy semantics, expected_revision's role, and any warnings about non-idempotency or potential data loss, leaving the agent to guess at safe usage.

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%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters (dry_run, project_id, expected_revision, validation_policy). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and schema defaults, which is insufficient given the safety implications of dry_run and validation_policy.

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 lists four concrete operations—migrate legacy shapes, generate missing ids, repair indices/parents, and rebuild memberships—clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It is specific enough to distinguish it from generic validation or update tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 alternatives like iccplus_validate, iccplus_patch, or iccplus_project_status. The description provides no context on the appropriate conditions or scenarios for running normalization.

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