manage_bom

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds specific action semantics (detect, strip, add) and conditional requirements (encoding for 'add'), enriching understanding beyond the generic hints without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first defines purpose, the second condenses all parameter details. It is information-dense with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description, combined with annotations (destructive, idempotent) and output schema, covers purpose, usage context, parameter constraints, and safety implications. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by enumerating valid action values, specifying encoding as required for 'add', and listing supported encoding formats. This provides complete parameter meaning 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 explicitly states the tool detects, strips, or adds a Unicode BOM, using specific verbs and identifying the resource. It also provides context about UTF-8 and UTF-16 implications, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like detect_encoding and convert_encoding.

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 conveys when BOM management is relevant (UTF-8 breaking scripts, UTF-16 needing BOMs), giving clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, falling short of full exclusion guidance.

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