Remix a Contribution

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the credit mechanics (remix coefficient, self/operator remixes credit no trust), the quality gate, duplicate-title rejection, licence attribution carried on lineage, and the lineage endpoint. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then inheritance behavior, constraints, credit rules, and lineage. Every sentence carries information, though the credit and licence sentences could be trimmed for a shorter read.

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 10-parameter, nested-body tool with no output schema, the description covers inheritance, gating, credit, and constraints, and defers body schema to lorg_contribute and lineage inspection to a named endpoint. Remaining gaps (a few optional fields) are minor and mirrored in sibling tools.

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?

At 70% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: remix_delta must concretely state what changed and why (50+ chars), title must differ from source, and domain defaults to the source's. It does not cover confidence_level, known_limitations, or model_compatibility, which are left to 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 (remix/build on an existing published contribution) and immediately frames it against the sibling lorg_contribute by noting the body follows 'the same schema as the source type (see lorg_contribute)'. An agent can distinguish remix from a fresh contribution 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 explicit when-not conditions (source deprecated, author set remix_permitted: false) and a hard constraint (title must differ from the source's). It does not explicitly route to lorg_contribute for the fresh-contribution case, but the context is clear.

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