tidy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden well: it discloses the dry-run-by-default posture, exactly what a dry run returns (each move and link rewrite), and how to actually apply (`dry_run: false`). It stops short of stating reversibility, permissions, or error behavior on collections without `folders:`.

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?

Three dense sentences that lead with scope, then behavior, then the dry-run contract. Em-dash clauses make it slightly heavy, but every sentence contributes needed information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the effect, the link-rewriting side effect, the dry-run return, and how to commit. Only the collection identifier semantics and failure modes remain unstated.

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 gives `dry_run` real meaning (default true, pass false to apply). The `collection` parameter is only implicitly characterized as one that declares `folders:` — its identifier format or expected value is not clarified.

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 concrete verb and effect: move every initiative to the folder matching its status (or the collection top), carry its asset folder, and rewrite links. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from set_status by noting that status changes keep things in step, so tidy is only for files already out of place.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it applies to collections declaring `folders:`, is for correcting already-out-of-place files, and the status-change tools handle ongoing alignment. It lacks an explicit named alternative (e.g. `set_status`), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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