Arbitrate the semver bump of token changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: a reason is returned per change, and a warning is emitted when a token is removed without prior deprecation — information an agent could not infer from the 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the output contract is front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries new 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't restate return values, yet it still summarizes the bump, per-change reasons and warnings. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating the five change kinds (added, removed, renamed, value-changed, deprecated) that the `changes` array accepts, giving the agent the semantic vocabulary of the required input.

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 states a specific verb and resource — take token changes and return the required semver bump (major/minor/patch) with per-change reasons and warnings. That output shape makes it clearly distinct from siblings like lint_naming or audit_css, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: 'Use it to prepare a release or review a change set.' That is enough for an agent to know when it applies, but there are no exclusions or named alternative tools for adjacent tasks such as linting or proposing changes.

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