recategorize_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the move is destructive, whether the source artifact is copied or renamed in place, whether existing references/IDs break, or what happens to the untouched parameters — and over half the text is tier/upsell boilerplate unrelated to behavior.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the following two sentences plus an upgrade URL are pure promotional content with zero operational value, consuming roughly two-thirds of the description.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 of 8 parameters undocumented, the description should disclose far more about effects and identity handling. It offers only the tier gate and upgrade link, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it safely.

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?

Eight parameters with only 25% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for source_id, source_kind, target_kind, new_id, new_name, or signed_by. The category framing faintly implies what source_kind/target_kind are, but new_id/new_name/signed_by remain entirely unspecified in both schema and description.

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 gives a concrete verb and object ('Move a miscategorized artifact'), and the concrete examples ('this is a decoration / a reusable part') make the source_kind-to-target_kind reclassification unambiguous. It does not name a nearby sibling such as promote_kit_piece or transfer_artifact_between_orgs to disambiguate, but the core action is clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to reclassify versus when to use promote_kit_piece, import_model_parts, or transfer_artifact_between_orgs, nor any prerequisites such as whether the artifact must be unlocked or in a branch. The only constraint offered, 'Requires Kiln Pro', is framed as marketing rather than operational guidance.

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