groom_epic

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent operations, and the description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying what gets reconciled (adds missing entries, removes non-existent ones, refreshes titles and markers). It does not detail side effects like file modifications or error handling, but it compensates for the lack of output schema by describing the return structure, enhancing transparency.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific actions and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive reconciliation with multiple actions) and lack of output schema, the description does well by explaining the reconciliation process and return values. However, it could improve by mentioning prerequisites or error cases, but it is largely complete for guiding agent usage.

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 100% coverage with a clear description for epic_id, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It mentions 'epic_id' in the return value context but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('Reconcile'), the target resource ('## Stories section in an epic.md file'), and the scope of changes ('with story files on disk and the requirements index'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reconciliation rather than creation, retrieval, or status updates, which are handled by tools like create_epic, get_story, or set_epic_status.

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 an epic's stories section needs synchronization with actual files and index, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_stories or get_index_summary for checking discrepancies. It provides clear context for reconciliation tasks but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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