reorganize_mcp_api_definitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that plan performs no writes, that apply needs confirm true, that conflicts (duplicate endpoint id, mismatched base_url/service/variables) block apply, and that deleteSourcesAfterMerge and moveSourcesToArchive are mutually exclusive. It does not spell out the exact destruction semantics of deleteSourcesAfterMerge, leaving a small gap.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose before drilling into modes, grouping, and conflict rules. It is telegraphic in places but every clause adds actionable information with no filler.

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 7-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers modes, prerequisites, conflict-blocking behavior, and side-effect options well. Minor gaps remain: workspaceRoot handling and what a plan run returns to the caller.

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 description coverage is only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 6 of 7 params: mode, confirm, groupBy, manualGroups (targetRelativePath + sourceGlobs, relative to .mcp/api/), and both cleanup flags with their mutual exclusivity. Only workspaceRoot is left undocumented beyond the schema's env-var note.

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 (merge) and resource (multiple YAML API definitions into fewer files), plus the two operating modes. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like upsert_canonical_api_definition or convert_legacy_to_canonical without opening any 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?

Explicitly contrasts plan (no writes) vs apply (requires confirm true), and details when each groupBy value applies and what each requires. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when this tool is the wrong choice, but the internal mode routing is very clear.

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