repad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the mutation scope (renames files and their asset folders and rewrites links across the repo), the safety default (dry run returns planned changes), and a failure mode (refuses a width too small for the highest number). It even describes the return payload, compensating for the absent output 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the em-dash parentheticals efficiently convey the default width and format. It is dense but every clause earns its place; the multi-clause first sentence is slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers operation, defaults, side effects, return values, and a refusal condition. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 only 67% and collection is undocumented there, but the description supplies the two key behaviors: width defaults to the width most files use, and dry_run defaults to true. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't elaborate on the collection argument itself.

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?

States a specific verb (pad) and resource (initiative numbers in a collection), with concrete examples of the target format (`01-`, `001-`). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like renumber and rename_collection without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the operating mode clearly: dry run by default and dry_run: false to apply, so the agent knows the safe path. However, it never names or contrasts with alternatives (renumber, rename_collection), so the when-versus-which guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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