lifecycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly distinguishes read-only inspection ('info') from mutations ('reinforce', 'supersede', 'restore'), states that reason is 'stored on the event', and explains the meaning of delta as 'manual reinforcement'. This is solid behavioral transparency for a tool of this complexity.

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 front-loads the core purpose in one sentence and then uses a compact, scannable argument list with no fluff. Every line adds necessary semantic information and nothing is repeated from the schema without purpose.

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 tool with five parameters and multiple mutation modes, the description adequately covers operation semantics, action-specific requirements, and parameter meaning. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit note about consequences of destructive actions like supersede or restore, but the current text is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has zero property descriptions, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains all five parameters: chunk_id target, action allowed values, new_id obligation for supersede, delta as confidence adjustment with default, and reason as free text stored on the event. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('Inspect or mutate') and a specific resource ('schema v4 lifecycle state for a chunk'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. The explicit action list further disambiguates it from the sibling tools, which deal with search, indexing, and file reads.

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 names the four lifecycle actions and the condition requiring new_id for supersede, which tells the agent what operations are available. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over siblings like index_project or graph_query, nor does it mention excluded scenarios. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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