implement

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 explains that the tool activates mutation flags, returns a diff, and differentiates behavior between git and non-git repositories. It also warns about the path resolution context. Missing details on failure modes or missing base_path behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, use cases, and detailed notes. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and behavior well but lacks parameter-level documentation for most parameters. It does not describe return details beyond the diff summary, nor error handling or edge cases. An output schema would improve completeness.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description only explains the 'base_path' parameter in detail (absolute path requirement, relative resolution, git behavior). Other parameters ('agent', 'plan', 'constraints', 'timeout_seconds') receive no explanation in the description, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: delegating implementation to a CLI agent that edits files in a base path. The verb 'delegate' and resource 'implementation to a CLI agent' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like 'delegate_implementation' by the detailed behavioral notes.

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 explicit use cases (e.g., 'Claude designs → Codex implements' workflow) and important usage notes (absolute path requirement, relative path resolution behavior). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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