shadowgraph_maintain

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description adds crucial nuance: it commits a revision even when a repeat at the same instant finds nothing to do, and it depends on the clock. This goes beyond the structured metadata and helps an agent predict side effects.

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 sentences carry all essential information with no repetition or filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the sibling comparisons are compact but informative.

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 a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description needs only to explain behavior and tool selection, which it does thoroughly. The note about non-idempotence and clock dependence closes the most likely agent confusion.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already explains all three parameters in detail, including defaults and ephemeral semantics. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Run time-based maintenance') and breaks it into concrete steps: make decisions stale, expire due facts, evaluate reopen rules. It also names sibling tools and differentiates this one by what it does that they cannot. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with shadowgraph_review, shadowgraph_validate, and shadowgraph_update_status, stating what each alternative fails to do. It also clarifies that the tool writes and is clock-dependent, so an agent knows when to call it and what to expect.

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