realign_purpose

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not explain side effects, whether the change is persistent or session-local, or what happens to existing state. Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but no details on destructiveness or idempotency are provided in the description.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Given the conciseness is appropriately sized but could be improved with more structure, it scores 4.

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?

Considering the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and is a mutation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of optional parameters, the format of the response, or how the realignment manifest. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters; it only describes the overall action. The parameter descriptions in the schema are decent but independent of the tool 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 the tool realigns the agent with its mission, operating horizon, and execution priorities, which provides a general sense of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly changes or how the realignment occurs, and it does not differentiate this tool from other purpose-related siblings like refine_soul_document or temper_frame.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or situations where the tool should not be used. It merely states the action without usage context.

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