Remix a curated Micro

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the operation writes into a fresh local directory and deliberately does not copy runtime data or provider state. This gives the agent a clearer model of side effects beyond the raw annotation flags.

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 two efficient sentences. The first states the core action; the second provides important negative clarifications. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 the annotations, output schema, and sibling-tool context, the description covers the core behavior and distinguishes this operation from related tools. It could be more complete by explaining what 'provenance' means or how the source snapshot is sourced, but these are minor gaps.

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 descriptions already cover the path and directory parameters, and the description's phrase 'fresh local directory' reinforces the directory parameter. However, the required entry parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not explicitly explain how 'entry' maps to a 'licensed source snapshot,' so it adds only partial clarity beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Restore one licensed source snapshot into a fresh local directory with provenance.' It also differentiates itself by explicitly listing what it does not do, such as creating a project, reserving a slug, or copying runtime data and provider state, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 clearly conveys the intended context: restoring a licensed source snapshot locally with provenance. It provides useful negative boundaries by stating what the tool does not do, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them over micro_remix.

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