refresh_blend

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) only tell the agent it's a non-destructive write; the description adds real behavioral context by explaining the delta vs verbatim difference between modes and that intensity tracks drift per layer. It omits reversibility/auth/rate details, but goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and combined-tool behavior, then mode distinctions. Dense with domain jargon (faf/fafm/soul) but every sentence carries information; slight density cost keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a 5-param, 0-required, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mode semantics and how intensity maps to layers, which is enough to call it correctly. It does not address what a successful refresh returns or whether 'nuke' overwrites are reversible.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the mode enum and per-sub-tool applicability. The description's mode analogies add flavor but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb (refresh) and resource (blend = .faf + .fafm) and explicitly says it 'Fires BOTH `refresh_faf` + `refresh_fafm` in one call,' which directly distinguishes it from those two siblings.

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?

Clearly frames each mode's use case: 'blend' is 'the everyday re-ground' and 'nuke' is 'the hard reload for polluted session memory,' giving concrete selection criteria. It stops short of saying when to prefer the underlying refresh_faf/refresh_fafm over this combined call.

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