Reuse Context Package

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

Annotations indicate idempotent mutation. Description adds extensive behavioral context: canonical mutation, idempotency key replay, authorization checks, expected-version handling, human approval not required, failure modes with actions, and post-action steps.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Use when, Requires, Effect, Human approval, Then, On failure). Front-loaded with core action. Slightly verbose but justified by complexity.

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 12 parameters, 2 required, high schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description adds necessary workflow context, failure handling, and post-action guidance. Fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about idempotency key usage but does not significantly expand on parameter meanings.

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 'Record that the selected project reused a context package' with specific target types. It names the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like record_context_consumption.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections provide clear context, including conditions like 'project scope unresolved' and 'user declined'. Mentions that a narrower tool may be better but does not list specific alternatives.

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