chaprola_consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states side effects: deletes .MRG and .IGN after success, and aborts if .MRG was modified during the operation. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool, though it does not mention error handling details or 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The action, resource, outcome, and side effects are all covered concisely. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 description covers the operation, inputs, and side effects adequately for a moderate-complexity tool. It omits return value details and what happens on abort, but with a simple output and no output schema, this is acceptable. Slightly more detail on the abort behavior could push it to 5.

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%, with both parameters (file and project) already described. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Merge') and identifies the exact resources involved ('.MRG file into its parent .DA'), with a clear outcome ('producing a clean sorted data file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chaprola_merge and chaprola_import, which operate on different inputs/scopes.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when a .MRG file needs to be consolidated into its parent .DA), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this instead of...' or prerequisites, so guidance is only inferred.

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