unsettle

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state transition, that name/body/type carry over by default, and the 'unless you say otherwise' override, which is useful. However, it never says what happens to the source node (consumed, renamed, preserved?) even though the schema calls the output a 'successor', leaving the mutation's side effects ambiguous.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the purpose and then the minimal-invocation default. Nothing wasted.

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 5-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and defaults but omits the source node's fate, permission/auth requirements, and reversibility, leaving an agent with open questions about the operation's effects.

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 already 80% (baseline 3), and the description adds real value by explaining the default carry-over behavior of new_name/new_body/new_type with no arguments needed. The `source` parameter is only loosely referenced via `<name>`, so it does not fully compensate for every param.

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 ('bring an archival node back into the operational tier') and explicitly frames itself as `settle`'s mirror, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear use condition ('settled knowledge that turned out to still be in flight') and names the mirror sibling `settle`, implying when each applies. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct 'use settle instead when…' statement.

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