Auto Refactor Novel Structure

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

The description discloses that it is a refactoring operation and supports dry-run preview, which is useful. But it does not elaborate on the nature of the changes, potential for moving files, or reversibility beyond the schema's mention of snapshot. Since annotations are absent, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a key usage note. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (restructuring directories), the description provides a basic overview but lacks details about what the preview output looks like or what the actual restructuring entails. It is adequate but has room for improvement.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It adds the dry-run/confirm detail, but that is already in the schema. No extra semantic value is provided beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states it 'classifies and standardizes the novel project folder structure according to the standard layout' which is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like story_scan_messy_project or story_init. It is unambiguous.

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?

Mentions dry-run mode (confirm=false) to preview before executing, which gives context on safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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