p4_shelve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and purpose. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether the shelf is replaceable, what happens to files already shelved, or any permission/side-effect implications.

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?

The description is one short sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. It is concise, though arguably too sparse to fully support a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about side effects and the review workflow. The schema covers the parameters, but the description leaves behavioral and usage context for the shelf operation almost entirely implicit.

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 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The description does not mention changelist, files, delete, or workspacePath, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Shelve files for code review' identifies the operation (shelving) and target (files), with the purpose of code review. It is concise and non-tautological, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like p4_unshelve or p4_review_prepare.

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 guidance is given on when to shelve versus using related tools, and no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. 'For code review' gives a weak contextual hint but does not explain how this differs from p4_review_prepare or that p4_unshelve is the counterpart.

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