Version-bump a vault library asset

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

The description discloses the exact side effects: writing to a sidecar `<asset>.versions.json`, updating frontmatter `version` field, and the read_only mode. It also mentions the environment requirement (TDMCP_VAULT_PATH). Annotations already indicate mutability, but the description adds specific file-level behavior that annotations do not 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It packs essential information (operation, file effects, read_only mode, environment requirement) without redundancy or fluff.

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 a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, read_only mode, and environment prerequisites. It does not describe error cases or return format, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does add context about the sidecar structure and read_only behavior, but it does not significantly expand on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Apply a SemVer patch/minor/major bump to a vault recipe or component note.' It clearly distinguishes its scope from siblings by specifying the vault asset context and the sidecar/frontmatter side effects, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a concrete usage mode: 'Pass `read_only:true` to inspect the sidecar without bumping,' and states an important selection criterion: 'Pure vault I/O — no TouchDesigner bridge required.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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