manage_bundles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it explains action-specific outputs, persisted state toggling, exceptions for default bundles, side effects of disabling (stops auto-creating types while preserving data), and the return type (structured JSON). No contradictions with annotations.

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 and well-structured: three sentences with the main verb+resource up front, followed by action details and constraints. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all action types, required parameters, exceptions, side effects, and return format. The tool's complexity is fully addressed in a compact space.

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 coverage is 100% and parameters already have descriptions, but the tool description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what happens when disabling a bundle, what list returns). This goes beyond the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Inspect and manage Neotoma bundles' and enumerates specific actions (list, info, install, enable, disable) with distinct outcomes. This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on entities, relationships, and other domains.

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 usage context for each action (e.g., 'action=info (with bundle) returns full manifest detail') and notes constraints like default-install bundles cannot be disabled. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list shows no overlapping bundle tools, so the guidance is sufficient.

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