Split Composition Entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses mutation, soft-deletion, state duplication across targets, new local id minting, version bumps, activity events, structured split_applied events, and audit history visibility.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and side-effect summary, then expands into usage context and event behavior. Every sentence adds operational value, and the length is justified by the complexity of the mutation.

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?

The description covers purpose, side effects, parameter routing, event emissions, and audit behavior. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not the description's job, and nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 80%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: model_id is the ancestor, the entity being split lives on it, target_descendants are the models that each receive a copy, and ancestor_local_id identifies the entity to split. This goes beyond the raw parameter names.

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: it pushes an ancestor-owned entity down to descendants and soft-deletes the ancestor's copy. It also explicitly names itself as the inverse of lift_composition_entity, making its unique role clear among siblings.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it: when an entity on an ancestor is actually descendant-specific and should be modeled separately per descendant. It also names the inverse operation, giving the agent a clear decision boundary against the closest alternative.

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