lifecycle_classify_change

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is a deterministic predicate (implying no side effects), what it compares, and the exact shape of the verdict. It stops short of explicitly guaranteeing read-only/no-mutation behavior or describing failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and decision logic, then the parameter and return details in clearly separated blocks. The opaque spec reference '(#141 C2)' is noise for an agent, but overall the text is efficient and well organized.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned verdict fields (disposition, f3, changed, f3_changed, categories, reason), so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the parameter explanations and decision rule, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that before/after are attribute objects containing interface-defining and internal attributes, and that extra_f3 maps attribute names to Form/Fit/Function legs. This adds real meaning beyond the bare 'object' schemas, though the internal structure of the attribute objects is still unspecified.

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 and resource ('deterministic Form/Fit/Function predicate ... compare before/after attributes and decide rename-vs-revise') and names the exact verdicts it produces. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lifecycle_transition and lifecycle_apply_change, which mutate state, because this one is framed as a pure decision predicate.

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?

The description gives a clear decision rule for when the result should be 'new_part_number' vs 'revise', which tells an agent when this tool is the right one to call. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives (e.g. lifecycle_editable, lifecycle_apply_change) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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