drizzle_integrate

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

'Async' is a genuine behavioral disclosure not present in the annotations, warning the agent that completion must be checked separately rather than awaited synchronously — important because readOnlyHint=false only signals a non-read operation, not asynchronicity. The note that inputs come from register and are updated by integrate adds useful lifecycle context. It is consistent with the annotations and contradicts nothing, though it stops short of describing side effects or how completion is signaled.

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 short sentences, each adding distinct information: input source, prerequisite plus scale semantics, and async behavior. No filler or repetition of the tool name, and the key constraint is front-loaded. The dense parenthetical 'CFA-free super-sampling of rejection' sacrifices readability, so it is efficient but not maximally clear.

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 an asynchronous tool with seven parameters and no output schema, key operational facts are missing: how an agent detects completion (siblings job_status and job_wait exist but are not referenced), what the result is and where it is written, and the meaning of four parameters. The description covers the input source and one prerequisite, which is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description carries much of the parameter-documentation burden and does add real value for scale, glossing the cryptic 1/2 enum values as 'CFA-free super-sampling of rejection' versus 2. It also clarifies the origin and default of xdrz_files through its workflow sentence. But out, kernel, keep_open, and use_local_normalization remain unexplained in both schema and description, so the compensation is only partial.

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 identifies a concrete process — DrizzleIntegration — and its input resource (.xdrz files), and situates it in the pipeline by noting these files are 'written by register and updated by integrate,' which distinguishes it from siblings like integrate and fast_integrate. However, the noun phrasing 'DrizzleIntegration' instead of an explicit verb such as 'perform' or 'combine,' plus dense jargon like 'CFA-free super-sampling of rejection,' makes the purpose less accessible to a non-domain agent.

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 requirement of 'dithered subs' is an implicit precondition that tells an agent when this tool is appropriate, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as integrate, fast_integrate, or local_normalization. There is no 'use X instead when...' routing guidance. The mention of the register-to-integrate file lifecycle implies a workflow position, but leaves the decision of when to choose this over plain integrate to inference.

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