Version-bump a vault library asset

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

The description clearly discloses the tool's write operations (bumping, sidecar creation, frontmatter update) and adds context beyond annotations. It explains the read_only behavior for inspection without mutation, and clarifies there is no TouchDesigner bridge interference. Annotations (destructiveHint=false) align with the described additive writes.

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 three tightly focused sentences, each essential. The first covers the main action and its effects, the second explains the read_only option, and the third adds important context (pure I/O, requirement). No extraneous wording.

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 is self-contained and covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavioral traits. It lacks explicit error-handling details (e.g., missing asset_path) but otherwise provides enough context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. The sidecar structure and frontmatter update are well described.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description adds meaningful context: explaining the sidecar structure, bump types (patch/minor/major), and the effect of read_only. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Apply a SemVer bump') and identifies the resource ('vault recipe or component note'). It details exactly what the tool does (recording sidecar JSON, writing frontmatter) and distinguishes itself by noting 'Pure vault I/O — no TouchDesigner bridge required' and the required environment variable, setting it apart from sibling tools.

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 the tool is for version bumping and optionally inspecting via read_only:true, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., provenance_stamp, manage_checkpoint) nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is minimal beyond the core function.

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