memshelf_rebuild

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond that: which files are rewritten, that check=true is non-mutating drift reporting, and the concurrency caveat about not running while a bot is rendering. It doesn't cover atomicity or failure behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 compact sentences: the primary action and its outputs come first, followed by the mode qualifier and the operational caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 and annotations covering idempotency and mutation profile, the description supplies what's missing: artifact names, the two modes, and the recommended run condition. The only gap is guidance on choosing between check and full rebuild in normal workflows, which an agent must infer.

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 schema's own nested descriptions for adopt, check, and shelf_path are already detailed; the description only restates the check=true semantics ('only reports drift') and adds nothing for adopt or shelf_path. Reported top-level schema coverage is 0%, but the nested field documentation carries the burden, so this lands at the baseline rather than below it.

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?

Specific verb ('Regenerate') plus resource ('the derived files') and it enumerates the exact artifacts produced (ledger.tsv, .meta.json, INDEX.md, stats.svg), so an agent knows precisely what this produces. It does not name the sibling tools it overlaps with (memshelf_index, memshelf_rollup, memshelf_stats), so disambiguation from those still requires inference.

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?

Gives a clear operational condition: 'Hand-run it only on a shelf whose bot is not rendering', which tells the agent when this is appropriate vs. letting the automated path handle it. The check=true mode is also framed as a reporting-only path. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the report-only case (e.g., lint/doctor siblings).

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