cuemap_init

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal significant behaviors: the operation applies a state-changing scope and starts a persistent filesystem watcher, and it is gated on explicit user confirmation. However, it does not disclose what happens on re-invocation (overwrite vs. no-op), whether the watcher runs indefinitely or how it is stopped, or the effect on existing CueMap data for the repository.

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 with zero filler. The core action and its dual nature (apply scope + start watcher) are front-loaded in sentence one, and the critical safety protocol is delivered compactly in sentence two. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the most critical context — the preview-then-confirm gate — which mitigates the biggest misuse risk. But it omits other necessary operational details: what the call returns, behavior when invoked twice on the same repository, failure modes when the preview was skipped, and watcher lifecycle management.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds marginal meaning by tying the 'confirmed' parameter to the explicit user-confirmation workflow ('before setting confirmed=true'), which is genuinely useful. But it adds nothing beyond the schema for path, projectName, includedPaths, ignoredPatterns, or ignoredExtensions.

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 specific verbs ('apply', 'start') tied to concrete resources ('ingestion scope', 'incremental filesystem watcher'), clearly stating both what the tool does and that it is the confirmation-gated finalization step. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling cuemap_init_preview by framing preview as the preceding step, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Always call cuemap_init_preview first for a new repository and obtain explicit user confirmation before setting confirmed=true.' This names the key alternative (preview) and the condition that selects it. However, it provides no when-not-to-use guidance or fallback alternatives against the other 30 siblings, so it stops short of full exclusion semantics.

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