replace_outdated_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the operation is atomic and requires explicit confirmation. It does not say whether the replacement is irreversible, what happens to resources that fail validation, or whether the project must be saved beforehand.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the confirmation gate as the trailing condition. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But this is an unannotated bulk mutation, and the description omits irreversibility, preconditions, and its relationship to find_outdated_resources — enough missing context to leave an agent guessing about side 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?

The single parameter has zero schema description coverage (only a boolean with default false), so the description must carry meaning — and it does, explaining that confirm must be explicitly set to true, implying a default of false means no-op. It still doesn't say what happens if confirm is omitted versus explicitly false.

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The verb 'replace' targets a specific resource set ('all outdated resources'), so the operation and its scope are unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like find_outdated_resources or list_project_resources, but the action itself is clear.

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 phrase 'after explicit confirm=true' implies a prerequisite gate, which hints at the workflow. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., run find_outdated_resources first, or that this is the remediation step for that listing), nor any when-not conditions.

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