Normalize author_sort

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the preview option and the concept of author_sort normalization. It correctly characterizes the tool as potentially destructive and provides mitigation (preview). It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence is informative without redundancy. Highly concise.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with no output schema. The description explains the purpose and preview feature but doesn't detail what 'inconsistent' means or the normalization logic. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb 'Find and fix' and the resource 'inconsistent author_sort values'. It provides an example of the correct format, making the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tool has this specific normalization focus.

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 implies usage when author_sort values are inconsistent, and it advises to preview changes before applying. This gives clear context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. The sibling list doesn't contain a similar tool, so no differentiation is needed.

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