organize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavioral traits: the tool performs migration/reorganization (implies mutation), requires user approval (interactive/confirmation step), and keeps minimal references (preservation behavior). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like whether original CLAUDE.md is modified or deleted, error handling, or what happens if .project-memory/ already exists. The description adds value but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and scope. The second sentence adds crucial behavioral constraints (user approval requirement). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the main purpose immediately clear.

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 this is a mutation tool (reorganizes/migrates files) with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more heavy lifting. It covers the what (migration) and one constraint (user approval) but doesn't describe what the tool returns, error conditions, or what happens to the source CLAUDE.md file. For a file manipulation tool with zero structured metadata, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the complete behavior.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist. It focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, which is correct for a zero-parameter tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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: 'Organize existing CLAUDE.md into project-memory structure' and specifies what gets migrated (architecture, conventions, commands, tasks, specs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-spec' or 'parse-tasks' by focusing on migration/organization rather than creation or parsing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'sync' or 'refresh-prompts' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to migrate content from CLAUDE.md to .project-memory/ files. It explicitly states 'Requires user approval' which indicates a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools like 'sync' or 'refresh-prompts' that might handle similar content management.

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