Apply safe codemods

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

The description correctly states the tool runs deterministic, local, safe codemods, hinting at non-destructive behavior. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention what happens during 'apply' vs 'dry-run', permissions needed, or side effects. With no annotations, a 3 is generous because it at least signals safety.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with key information. It could benefit from expanding on context, but it is not verbose. Every word serves a purpose, though the phrase 'v1 safety model' could be more concrete.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. An agent needs more details to use this tool effectively: parameter semantics, return behavior, and relation to upgrade pipeline. The sibling set suggests upgrade context, but the description does not connect to it.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the three parameters ('mode', 'rootPath', 'codemodIds'). The description only mentions 'codemods' indirectly; it does not explain 'mode' roles ('dry-run' vs 'apply'), 'rootPath' scope, or how to specify 'codemodIds'. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 'Run deterministic, local codemods that are explicitly allowed by the v1 safety model.' It provides a verb ('Run') and resource ('codemods') but does not distinguish the tool from siblings like 'run_upgrade_pipeline' or 'apply safe codemods' might overlap with 'apply' operations in other tools. It also introduces an unclear concept ('v1 safety model') without explanation, which could confuse an 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'run_upgrade_pipeline', 'validate_upgrade'). It lacks context on prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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