rechain

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses real behavior (recomputes shortest path, picks up new edges/re-weights) and what is preserved (id, name, summary), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what edges/nodes are lost during a refresh.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then the two modes, with no filler. Tight and readable, though the dual-mode branching takes slightly more parsing than a single-clause tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the core behavior and preservation guarantee but leaves gaps: no `initiative` semantics, no permission/reversibility context, and no indication of what the refresh discards.

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 coverage is only 67% and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents for `to` (regenerate vs extend), so it adds little beyond structured data. The `initiative` parameter is left unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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+resource ('refresh a chain') and splits it into two clearly named modes (regenerate vs extend). It's clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like 'chain' or 'reweight'.

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 gives the condition that selects each mode (omit `to` = regenerate, provide `to` = extend), which is useful. But it offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many alternatives (chain, reweight, path, between).

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