nexus_weave_enchanted_async

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool starts an async job and returns a job_id for polling and cancellation, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and outcome. It efficiently conveys the purpose and usage without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and clear.

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 complexity of an async job tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the async nature and job_id usage, but could benefit from more detail on parameters or error cases to be fully comprehensive.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'nexus_tag' and 'dry_run' implicitly by referencing the job, but doesn't explain what these parameters mean or how they affect the weave process. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Start an async NEXUS ENCHANTED WEAVE job') and the resource (WEAVE T2 back into Workflowy ETHER), providing a specific verb and target. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexus_weave' or 'workflowy_etch_async' that might handle similar async operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 for starting async jobs and mentions status polling and cancellation, suggesting when to use it (for async operations). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. synchronous tools or other nexus tools), leaving some ambiguity.

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