generalize

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It details write operations via CAS paths, PR batching, and side effects on KNOWLEDGE.md. Differentiates between org and team scope. No contradictions.

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 main purpose; parameter details follow. Some redundancy (e.g., 'in place' and 'rewrites one to its general form') but overall efficient. Minor wordiness does not harm clarity.

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 annotations are absent and parameter count is 3, the description provides comprehensive context: usage, parameters, write behavior, and output side effects. Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, but description explains `org_content` (with default behavior) and `note`. `item_id` remains implicit but is required. Adds meaning beyond schema for two of three parameters.

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 action: 'Restate an ALREADY-PROMOTED item's body as the cross-project rule' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'promote' by specifying it is the remediation counterpart of the org generalization gate.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: for items listed under `org_needs_generalization` by `review_promotions()`. Provides context for `org_content` defaulting to the endorsement note. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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