Re-open transplant on a ground

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects and risks: 'relaxing guards so historical/structural reconstruction can resume: add/edit nodes in any season incl. past, and hard-delete mistakes' and 'it removes safety guardrails'. It also notes that settling is human-only. This gives the agent a complete picture of consequences.

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 front-loaded with the main action, then provides crucial warnings and references. Every sentence adds value: the effect, what's allowed, explicit call conditions, exclusions, and a reference to rules. It is long but not wasteful—appropriately detailed for a safety-critical tool.

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?

This tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is fully self-contained: it explains the action, the side effects, the exact user-intent requirement, and the irreversible human-only step. It leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter ('slug' with 'Ground slug.'), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaning by specifying the parameter must be a 'rooted ground', which is a precondition not in the schema. This is useful for correct invocation and justifies a 4.

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 purpose: 'Re-opens the transplant window on a rooted ground (sets project.transplanting=true)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the effect is explicit. This distinguishes it from the CRUD siblings, as it's a state transition rather than a create/update/delete operation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'only call this when the user has EXPLICITLY asked to switch the ground into transplanting... Never decide to re-open transplant on your own judgment'. It also states an exclusion (rooting back is human-only) and references rules. This is the gold standard for usage guidance.

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