refine_design_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'preserving its structure' but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, error conditions, or whether the tool mutates data or returns a new version. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose plus two lines for arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could mention that the tool returns a revised document. For a simple tool, the description is largely complete, but missing some context about the output.

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 0% but the description adds meaning for both parameters: design_document is described as 'current design document (markdown)' and feedback as 'requested changes or additional context'. This clarifies the expected format and purpose beyond schema titles.

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 'Revise', the resource 'existing design document', and the condition 'based on feedback, preserving its structure'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling 'generate_design_document' which creates new documents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'generate_design_document' or 'ask_question'. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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