docshelf_init_shelf

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail: creates directory layout, pre-creates categories, stores remote URL, and notes that it never overwrites an existing manifest. This sufficiently explains its behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, actions, and idempotency. It front-loads the key action. No extraneous information, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given the tool complexity (initialization with multiple files and options) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description adequately lists created artifacts and guarantees idempotency. It covers key edge cases (existing shelf, manifest non-overwrite) but omits details like permission handling or error states, which are acceptable.

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?

The input schema already contains detailed descriptions for all properties of InitShelfInput, such as name, branch, provider, etc. The tool description adds minimal parameter context (e.g., mentions default_categories and github_remote). Given the schema coverage is stated as 0% (likely a misrepresentation), but the descriptions in the schema are thorough, the description adds some but not significant value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Bootstrap a new document shelf at `shelf_path`' with specific actions (creates directory layout, INDEX.md, .docshelf.json, .gitignore). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like docshelf_add_document by focusing on initializing the shelf itself.

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 provides clear context: it is used to set up a shelf and is idempotent ('safe to call on an existing shelf to update metadata'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the specialized purpose makes it obvious.

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