faf_enhance

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'enhance' implying modification is consistent. It adds promises like 'persistent context, zero drift' but does not explain what gets changed or the extent of modification. Beyond annotations, it provides limited behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. It includes key phrases but sacrifices completeness; however, it earns its place with no wasted words.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'enhancement' actually does, the expected outcomes, or how the session context (path parameter) is used. More detail is needed for adequate guidance.

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 100%, so each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for parameters, making the contribution marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 enhances project.faf with AI optimization, using the verb 'enhance' and specific resource 'project.faf'. It hints at benefits like 'persistent context, zero drift', making the purpose understandable but slightly vague. It distinguishes from siblings that perform other actions (e.g., check, read).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like faf_check or faf_auto. The description implies enhancement but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would not know when to choose enhance over other faf tools.

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