Read or replace the project-owned agent brief

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses atomic replacement semantics, revision requirements for replace, root resolution precedence, and the critical caveat that brief text cannot override safety policies or user intent. This provides substantial behavioral context not available from annotations or schema.

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?

Three concise sentences pack critical information: main action, atomicity, revision check, root precedence, and safety constraints. Every sentence adds value, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and the detailed description covering key behaviors (atomicity, revision handling, root precedence, safety limitations), the description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. No obvious information gap remains.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for some parameters: it explains expected_revision values ('absent' vs. exact revision) and project_root precedence. However, it does not elaborate on the 'brief' or 'action' parameters beyond common-sense inference from schema and overall purpose.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Reads or atomically replaces the versioned brief at <project_root>/.tdmcp/agent-brief.json.' This unequivocally distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on operator creation and media connections.

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 description implies when to use the tool by detailing root precedence and stating 'cwd is never used,' but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state conditions for when reading vs. replacing is appropriate. No sibling tool is mentioned as an alternative.

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