ddflow_split

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the key behavioral traits: the original keeps its id and history and becomes an umbrella, children inherit globs, and the parallelism constraint (cannot run in parallel until they get their own globs). This is rich, actionable behavior beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured. It front-loads the primary action and purpose, then adds behavioral nuance and parameter context. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. The two-paragraph structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what happens to the original and children, and how parameters affect behavior. It does not explicitly state return values or error handling, but those are less critical for a mutation tool and are not required given the lack of an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description adds meaning by explaining how 'globs' are inherited and how to give each child its own, and it notes that 'needs' sets dependencies for the first child while others chain from it via ddflow_update. This provides context that the bare schema lacks, raising the score to 4.

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 verb (split) and resource (item into sub-tasks), and explicitly says 'IN PLACE' to indicate the core behavior. It also distinguishes itself from the alternative of closing and reopening items, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and what it doesn't.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this the moment you discover it — mid-task discovery is the normal case, not an exception.' It also contrasts with the alternative (closing and opening two new ones) and explains why that would lose the thread, making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use crystal clear.

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