td_component_standardize

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

Annotations provide non-destructive, idempotent, not read-only cues. Description adds behavioral context: fix parameter is 'wrapped in undo block', indicating reversibility. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Low complexity tool with output schema and well-documented parameters. Description covers core purpose and fix behavior. Could mention output structure, but output schema renders that unnecessary.

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% with basic descriptions. The description adds meaning by specifying what 'standardization' includes (Version, Help, Creator, extension, naming), which clarifies the audit scope beyond schema fields.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Audit or fix COMP standardization'. Lists exact aspects (custom parameters, extension, naming). Distinguishes from siblings like td_component_notes which deals with notes, not standardization.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implies usage for standardization issues but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Adequate but not instructional.

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