faf_enhance

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds little beyond 'enhance' and 'zero drift'. It does not explain side effects, whether it modifies the file in place, or any required permissions.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with key action. However, the emojis and vague phrasing like 'zero drift' reduce clarity; a slightly more structured explanation would improve it.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or effect. It omits what 'enhancement' actually does to the .faf file, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome. The annotation 'destructiveHint: false' helps but is insufficient.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it achieves the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Enhance') and resource ('project.faf') and adds the purpose ('AI optimization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like faf_init or faf_write by emphasizing optimization and persistent context, though jargon like 'project DNA' reduces clarity.

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_init, faf_write, or faf_optimize (if it existed). The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how it differs from other faf_ tools.

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