cmd_refactor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-redundant structural context — that creation spans a ticket plus a pre-typed chain starting in Architecture — but it never explains why this creation is flagged destructive or what side effects/state it introduces.

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?

Four tight lines with no wasted prose; the core action is front-loaded and the workflow/scope notes follow. Minor inefficiency: the 'scope' definition is tacked on at the end rather than grouped with the parameters it describes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a creation tool that also provisions a multi-stage chain, the description omits when-to-use-vs-alternatives and the meaning of the optional 'entity' param, leaving real gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the required 'scope' parameter ('what's being refactored and why?') but says nothing about 'title' or the optional 'entity' parameter, leaving two of three params undocumented 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 description states a specific action and composite resource: 'Create refactor: ticket + chain + architecture declaration.' This is clearer than a bare verb and distinguishes it as the refactor-workflow variant of the cmd_* family, though it never explicitly names a sibling (cmd_bug_fix, cmd_enhancement) to route the agent.

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 describes the internal chain (Architecture -> Build -> Review, starting in Architecture) but gives no guidance on when to choose this over the very similar cmd_new_ticket, cmd_enhancement, cmd_bug_fix, or create_chain siblings. Usage is left entirely to inference from the word 'refactor'.

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