slot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the side effect (previous holder archived to `cold`), the link created (`supersedes`), the reversibility guarantee (nothing is deleted), and how to recover the predecessor (`at` / `surface layers=cold`). This is exactly the mutation semantics an agent needs.

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 front-loaded sentences with no waste: what it does, the exclusivity invariant plus side effect, and the non-destructive recovery path. Dense but every clause earns its place.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior and recovery well. It omits return/failure semantics and any permission prerequisites, but the core semantics are complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by stating that a role holds exactly one node and that taking it archives the prior holder, which is not captured in the field descriptions. The role names and per-initiative scoping are, however, largely duplicative of the schema.

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: making a node the live holder of a named role, with concrete role examples (handoff, entrypoint, queue, prod-state). It implicitly routes to `at`/`surface layers=cold` for reading the predecessor, but never names `slots` or `unslot` as alternatives, so it stops short of sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied through behavior rather than stated: the exclusivity rule (a role holds exactly one node) tells the agent this is the way to establish/replace a role holder. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. `supersede`, `link`) named.

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